U-6 The Real Unemployment Well Over 13% & Higher For Black Americans
Obama, Rewarding Law Breakers Illegal Alien & Punishing US Citizen!
Obama Pushing Immigration Reform – The Black Leadership Alliance – Leah Durant – O’Reilly
The Black Leadership Alliance To Have a rally July 15 in Washington DC More info to come!!
Wake Up America Your Freedom At Risk!
Obama Admin Says Turning Off Sequester Will Save $1 Trillion
President’s Bloated Budget Calls For $800B Tax Hike, $7.3 Trillion In New Debt – Fuzzy Math On Whitehouse.gov
Obama: Proposed budget not my ‘ideal plan’ Published April 06, 2013 Associated Press
Confronting bipartisan criticism, President Obama conceded Saturday his proposed budget is not his “ideal plan” but said it offers “tough reforms” to the nation’s benefit programs while closing loopholes for the wealthy, a mix that he argued will provide long-term deficit reduction without harming the economy.
In his first comments about a budget he is to release Wednesday, Obama said he intends to reduce deficits while at the same time providing new spending for public works projects, early education and job training.
“We don’t have to choose between these goals – we can do both,” Obama said in his weekly radio and internet address.
Obama’s budget calls for slower growth in government benefits programs for the poor, veterans and the elderly, as well as higher taxes, primarily from the wealthy. Some of its details, made public Friday, drew a fierce response from liberals, labor unions and advocates for older Americans and prompted an unimpressed reaction from Republican House Speaker John Boehner.
“It’s a compromise I’m willing to accept in order to move beyond a cycle of short-term, crisis-driven decision-making, and focus on growing our economy and our middle class for the long run,” Obama said.
Obama proposes spending cuts and revenue increases that would result in $1.8 trillion in deficit reductions over 10 years, replacing $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts that are otherwise poised to take effect over the next 10 years.
Counting reductions and higher taxes that Congress and Obama have approved since 2011, the 2014 budget would contribute to a total $4.3 trillion in total deficit reduction by 2023.
The key deficit reduction elements of the plan incorporate an offer Obama made to Boehner in December as both men sought to avert an impending “fiscal cliff” of automatic, across the board spending cut and broad tax increases.
Obama’s plan has two central features — $580 billion in new taxes that Republicans oppose and a new inflation formula, rejected by many liberals, that would reduce the annual cost of living adjustments for a broad swath of government programs, including Social Security and benefits for veterans.
In his address, Obama said he would achieve deficit reduction by making “tough reforms” to Medicare and by enacting “commonsense tax reform that includes closing wasteful tax loopholes for the wealthy and well-connected.”
Obama, however, made no mention of the effect his budget would have on Social Security and on other social safety net programs, a key feature of his proposal and one that drew hostile reaction from some of his most ardent political backers.
Obama rejected a House Republican budget that aims to balance the budget in 10 years with steep cuts in domestic spending. His remarks reflected the White House’s argument that Obama’s blend of tax increases and spending cuts have widespread public support and will ultimately change the terms of the fiscal debate in Washington.
“My budget will reduce our deficits not with aimless, reckless spending cuts that hurt students and seniors and middle-class families — but through the balanced approach that the American people prefer, and the investments that a growing economy demands,” he said.
Still, Obama has been unable to move House Republicans from their opposition to higher taxes. And his proposed reduction in the growth of benefits drew swift objections from allies.
“The president should drop these misguided cuts in benefits and focus instead on building support in Congress for investing in jobs,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a statement Friday.
Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback delivered the Republican radio address, arguing that “the ideas on how to fix the federal government are now percolating in the states.”
“You see, you don’t change America by changing Washington — you change America by changing the states,” he said. “And that’s exactly what Republican governors are doing across the country — taking a different approach to grow their states’ economies and fix their governments with ideas that work.
Brownback, a former House member and U.S. senator, called for a “taxing structure that encourages growth, an education system that produces measurable results, and a renewed focus on the incredible dignity of each and every person, no matter who they are.”
Labor Participation Rate Down from 63.5% to 63.3% - Lowest sinceMay 1979 under President Jimmy Carter
8.8 Million On Social Security Disability and are not counted as Unemployed
88,000 Job s created in March - Fewest in 9 Months
496.000 Civilian Jobs lost in March
U3 Unemployment rate Down from 7.7% to 7.6% - (This is NOT how we should measure Unemployment)
Civilian Labor Force dropped by 496,000
U6 Unemployment rate is up to 13.8% (This is how we SHOULD measure Unemployment)
Federal,State and Local Unemployment rate is a mere 3.6% (This is amazing – 618,000 jobs created in March alone
Barack Hussein Obama’s (BHO’s) Solution to our Economic Woes are incorporated in his Budget Proposal that follows the already Adopted House and Senate Versions:
Cut Entitlements like Social Security by the use of “Chained CPI” - This will cut cost of living increases dramatically. If Seniors will be required to abide by this cost of living mechanism, so should ALL CIVILIAN AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES! Obama has already stolen 950 Billion from Medicare, now he is going after our Social Security!
CUT Medicare even further by $400 Billion which he calls SAVINGS in his Budget.
Changes to Retirement Accounts - He once again pitches class warfare by cutting benefits to the “Rich”
In General BHO is advocating for MORE TAXES. – A Great Solution that will speed-up our economy’s tailspin
European Union Authorize Seizure Of Money In Private Bank Account!
Nigel Farage: Now They Done It In One Country They are Quite Capable Of Do it In Italy Spain Portugal Or Anywhere Else & The Message That Sends To People That Has Saving In Bank In Those Country, Certainly If I Was Them Is Get Your Money Out While You Can!!!
Could That Happen In The United State?
Crisis In Cyprus Sparking Fears About Bank Deposits Everywhere – Is Your Money Safe? – Cavuto
Finally we hear Scott Brown hitting a home run on Sequestration. He rightly points out that Barack Hussein Obama conceived and created Sequestration. While he was still serving in the Senate, the leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell both told him that Sequestration would never happen!
Jon Scott: And here we are with the White House closed to school kids The Administration can’t find a better way to save a couple of bucks?
Scott Brown: Listen, the bottom line is the Republicans have offered, and it makes common sense that the president should have what is called “Transfer Authority”. The ability to get in there and Kind of reopen and tweak the Sequester in a whole, and actually delegate – do thoughtful, judicious, methodical cuts. For example in the military, they need that. Give it to Heigl. Let him go in with a fine tooth-comb, no a scalpel I should say, to make the cuts that you need to make.
The President does not want this authority [“Transfer Authority”] because he wants to make the Republicans look bad. Everybody knows it and it’s time to show real leadership.”
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL – POTOMAC watch: March 8, 2013, 9:29 a.m. ET
Strassel: Jumping the Sequester
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
When the president canceled White House tours, he revealed his claims as ludicrous.
The phrase “jumping the shark” describes that gimmicky moment when something once considered significant is exposed as ludicrous. This is the week the White House jumped the sequester.
The precise moment came Tuesday, when the administration announced that it was canceling public tours of the White House, blaming budget cuts.
The Sequesterer in Chief has insisted that cutting even $44 billion from this fiscal year will cause agonizing pain—airport security snarls, uninspected meat, uneducated children. Since none of those things has come to pass, the White House decided it needed an immediate and high-profile way of making its point. Ergo, it would deny the nation’s school kids a chance to view a symbol of America.
The act was designed to spark outrage against Republicans, yet the sheer pettiness of it instead provided a moment of clarity. Americans might not understand the technicalities of sequester, but this was something else entirely. Was the president actually claiming there was not a single other government item—not one—that could be cut instead of the White House tours? Really?
St. Paul’s Lutheran SchoolSixth-graders at St. Paul’s Lutheran School in Waverly, Iowa.
The cancellations were an open invitation for the nation to dive into the gory depths of the federal budget—and re-emerge with a debate over waste and priorities. Over the past week, an entire cottage industry has sprung up of journalists, watchdog groups and average citizens reporting on the absurdities of federal spending. Republicans have lit up Twitter with examples of indefensible projects (#SequesterThis).
We’ve learned that the White House employs three calligraphers, who cumulatively earn $277,000 a year. The Environmental Protection Agency gave $141,000 to fund a Chinese study on swine manure. Part of a $325,000 National Science Foundation outlay went to building a robotic squirrel.
The government gave a $3,700 grant to build a miniature street in West Virginia—out of Legos. It shelled out $500,000 to support specialty shampoo products for cats and dogs. A San Diego outfit got $10,000 for trolley dancing. The feds last year held 894 conferences that each cost more than $100,000—$340 million altogether. But Mr. Obama is too broke to let American kids look around the White House.
Related Video Available at WSJ Online
Columnist Kim Strassel on how the world did and will not end because of sequester.
Speaking of that, the tour stunt itself is turning into a PR fiasco. ABC reports the cancellations save a total of $18,000 a week. A Forbes opinion piece noted the cost of cutting the tours was equal to about two hours operating Air Force One. Speaker John Boehner twisted the knife, announcing that while Congress was also getting hit by sequester, it had planned wisely, and tours of the Capitol would continue. Come on down folks! Visit the government branch that knows how to prioritize!
To top it off, a group of cherubic sixth-graders from St. Paul’s Lutheran School in Waverly, Iowa, became a national sensation in a YouTube video pleading with the White House to reopen tours. “The White House is our house. Please let us visit,” they beg in unison. The White House hasn’t yet responded, no doubt being too busy overseeing its $27 million project that helped fund pottery classes in Morocco. (No joke.)
This is the opportunity Republicans have been pushing for, to pivot the sequester discussion to the problem of spending, and they are taking a lead from Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn. This was the guy, remember, who in 2005 offered an amendment to remove funds from a little thing he called the Alaskan “Bridge to Nowhere” and to divert them to a vital bridge destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. The Bridge to Nowhere became such an embarrassing symbol of waste, Congress ultimately gave up earmarks.
Not all Republicans appreciated that episode, but they took away a couple of valuable political lessons. One, the public responds strongly to examples of waste. And two, the way to claim the high ground in such a debate is to contrast that waste with projects of real importance (like the Katrina bridge). Both lessons are tailor-made for today’s sequester fight.
Sen. Coburn himself has daily been sending letters to federal agencies, demanding that they justify their decisions to furlough existing workers rather than forgo new hires or fancy conferences. His efforts were one reason the Department of Agriculture spent this week stuttering out a justification for its sponsorship of a wine junket in California.
Utah Sen. Mike Lee has been producing graphics that show, for instance, pictures of free government cellphones next to pictures of border agents—with the Twitter tag #CutThisNotThat. Since late February, the House GOP has been highlighting its own #CutWaste projects, each of which contrasts Mr. Obama’s call for taxes with an example of embarrassing government outlays.
The White House’s shark-jumping moment has given these efforts new attention and threatens to take the sequester debate to a place this overconfident administration never imagined. The whole point of the White House’s effort to make the cuts hurt was to convince Americans that they couldn’t live without big, sweeping government. Now Americans are asking how the White House justifies living with it.
The Weimar Republic is the name given to the federal republic and parliamentaryrepresentative democracy established in 1919 in Germany toreplace its pre-WWI imperial form of government. It was named afterWeimar, the city where the constitutional assembly tookplace. The Weimar‘s Constitution was signed on August 11, 1919 and was deposed by Hitler’s Third Reich ascendency in February/March 1933. During its fourteen year existence the Weimar Republic was burdened by hefty reparations imposed by the victors of WWI, political extremist from both the Left and Right as well as rampant hyperinflation that permitted Hitler to seize power and dissolve the Constitution. The caption below the above photo of a one Hundred Million Mark note[A mark was equivalent to our $1-dollar bill] reads: In 1923, a German housewife burned mark notes in her kitchen stove since it was cheaper to burn marks than to buy firewood.
The vision most vividly embedded into the minds of school children studying the era is one of a wheelbarrow filled with thousands or millions of marks to purchase a single loaf of bread! The photo at left taken during this period, depicts that scenario.
When Barack Hussein Obama came into office, our FY2009 Budget stood at $3.1Trillion. Today the FY2013 Budget is at $3.8Trillion. Sequestration, which is a program devised by President Obama, cuts $85B across-the-board from THE RATE OF INCREASE of theFY2012 budge of 3.72Trillion. It DOES NOT DECREASE the FY2013 total budget amount from that of FY2012. Of the phantom $85B in cuts, half isslated to be removed from Defense Spending and half from Entitlement Spending. The $85B in phantom cuts represents measly 2.2% of our $3.8T Budget.
The FY2013 Budget consists of 60% Mandatory Spending and 40% Discretionary Spending. Mandatory spending is spending that is required under existing law. In passing, it needs to be noted that while Defense spending represents 19% of the FY2012 Budget, it is slated for 50% of the FY2013 Sequestration cuts.
Last Fall, Jim Rogers, the founder of Rogers International Commodity Index and economic guru,” predicted that America is headed to a “Financial Armageddon”. Rogers stated that he was absolutely convinced that the economy would burst soon after the election. He also stated that he has never been a supporter of the policy of quantitative easing.[ The Federal Reserve can just create dollars out of thin air by buying up assets like long-term Treasuries or mortgage-backed securities from commercial banks and other institutions. These "thin air" dollars created by the Federal Reserve flow into the banks, and in turn are pumped into the U.S. economy and ultimately reduce our long-term interest rates. The theory is that when long-term interest rates go down, investors have a greater incentive to spend their money.] Jim Rogers is also quite certain that our Government needs to cut spending in order to reduce our burgeoning debt. Rogers also stated that German Chancellor Angela Marker and Obama were promoting policies which were just another disguise for hiding the real state of their economies.
www.usgovernmentpending.com is estimating that the US debt to GDP will exceed 100% for 2012. Two American economists, Carmen Reinhardt and Ken Rogoff, argue that growth slows sharply in countries where the ratio of debt to GDP exceeds 90 percent.
So there you have it. Barack Hussein Obama is jawboning Congress about Sequestration, seeking even more deficit spending that will most certainly result in even slower growth, less jobs and further US credit rating downgrades. Are you going to push back on the President and his propaganda squads and support a strong America, or are you going to sit idly by and watch our economy and country slide further into the abyss?
Sequestration does not cut spending, it simply reduces the rate-of-increased spending
The Military is 1/4 of the Budget yet it is taking 1/2 of the Sequestration Budget Hits
America at Risk: Budget Cuts Threaten Military Readiness
Sequester Main Points:
On the sequester “cuts” not being real cuts:
The so-called sequester “cuts” aren’t even real cuts! This year the government will spend more of your money than they did last year, and next year they will spend even more. If you spent more money year after year, you wouldn’t say you were cutting spending, so why does Washington get away with it?
Overspending is overspending, no matter which way you look at it. Spending $800 that you don’t have on your credit card instead of $1000, doesn’t mean you cut $200 of spending. It means you’re still overspending by $800.
Only an extremist would want to stop the sequester. As the National Taxpayers Union said, it is a starting point, not a finish line. Politicians will never actually cut spending if we let the spending radicals like Nancy Pelosi stop us from taking this small step forward.
The amount of the so-called “cuts” would be enough to run the government for only 4.5 days, and the spending radicals like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid want us to believe that the sequester will be “devastating.”
On the President’s flip-flop:
As the president’s own press secretary admitted, the sequester was President Obama’s idea in the first place. American families are tired of him playing politics and blaming others for his own ideas.
In July 2011, a White House fact sheet praised the deal that gave us the sequester as “a win for the economy and budget discipline.” At the time, President Obama said it didn’t impact the middle class or working families. Now he says it does. He was either lying then, or he’s lying now.
What is the sequester anyway? In a nutshell, the sequester is a deal that the President signed into law that says the government will overspend a little less this year than they did last year. That’s it. So they’re still overspending.
A recent poll conducted by Anderson Robbins Research and Shaw & Company Research shows that 73% of Americans want the government to cut spending, while only 15% want increased spending. The time is now to do what the majority of the American people want done.
Everyone agrees that we need to reduce the deficit. Let’s start now by keeping the sequester in place, and making the politicians keep their promises, and uphold the laws they pass.
We need to become an economically sustainable nation. The sequester is a step in the right direction. Don’t let politicians and their well-connected friends stop this little bit of badly-needed progress.
Recently, Nancy Pelosi said that cutting Congressional pay would undermine their “dignity.” Could she be any more insulting? What about the dignity of the millions of Americans that are still out of work? Or the dignity of younger generations that will be burdened by the massive debt that paid politicians like Nancy Pelosi have racked up? What’s undignified is making a promise to the American people that you will cut spending and then trying to weasel your way out of it when the time comes, hoping that you’ll be retired before the bills come due.
The Heritage Foundation
Morning Bell: Spending Cuts Are Happening, One Way or Another
Amy Payne February 19, 2013 at 7:32 am
Federal budget cuts called “sequestration” are scheduled to hit in just 10 days. The sequestration cuts are not perfect—they’re a blunt instrument to cut spending, rather than a deliberative plan that sets priorities, trims entitlements, and cuts other spending. But they are law. It would be better to replace them with smarter cuts, but the reality is that Washington has to start cutting spending now. Real program reforms and a balanced budget are the only way to solve our continuing fiscal crises. So it is critical that Congress keep its word and follow through on these spending cuts to prove it is serious about bringing our budget into balance over the next 10 years. Now that the March 1 deadline is approaching, the President is urging Congress to offset the sequestration budget cuts with more tax increases. That’s simply unacceptable, says Heritage’s Grover M. Hermann Senior Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs, Patrick Louis Knudsen: “President Obama has already pocketed a $618 billion tax increase, so simply holding the line against taxes is a given.” Lawmakers shouldn’t be fooled by the President’s rhetoric on a “balanced” approach to sequestration or any other budget issue—that simply means he’s looking to raise taxes again. Instead, they should be focusing on true balance—balancing the federal budget in the next 10 years. Producing a budget would be a start, but balancing that budget is the way to put the country back on track. Knudsen explains:
We need spending cuts that are targeted to the programs that need reforms—the entitlements that are the major drivers of our growing deficit. Sequestration leaves many programs like Social Security, welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid untouched, while having devastating effects on national security. Trying to use defense cuts to balance the out-of-control entitlement spending while we still face growing threats (Russia, China, Iran, and al-Qaeda affiliates) is a fool’s errand that will create a hollow military and do nothing to fix economic troubles. But if Congress does not replace the sequestration cuts with smarter cuts—like eliminating Obamacare funding or other ineffective programs—then the sequestration cuts will be our first step toward getting serious about federal spending. The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation
On August 5th 2011 in an unprecedented move, the Standard & Poors Rating Agency lowered the Debt Rating of the United States from AAA to AA+. The lowered rating represented the first downgrade in 70 years and was preceded by numerous warnings to our government that the unprecedented Debt by the Obama Administration was crippling our economy and”..had grown increasingly skeptical that Washington policy makers would make significant progress in reducing the deficit, given the tortured talks over raising the debt ceiling.”
“S&P said the downgrade “reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics.” It also blamed the weakened “effectiveness, stability, and predictability” of U.S. policy making and political institutions at a time when challenges are mounting. ”
S&P also put the new grade on “negative outlook,” meaning the U.S. has little chance of regaining the top rating in the near term.”
Barack Hussein Obama is now jawboning Congress for even more fiscally irresponsible $Trillions in debt to satisfy his lust for a a new Socialist Order in America and this lawsuit appears to be a warning shot across the bow of S&P.
It will also serve as a warning to the other Rating Agencies not to challenge the Obama Administrations continuing black hole Debt lest they too succumb to the same fate that faces S&P .
Our Economy contracted -0.1% in the Last Quarter and the lamestream media is either yawning or rationalizing that there is no reason for panic or alarm! They excuse our precipitous GDP downturn even though the Barack Hussein Obama Administration injected enormous amounts of (borrowed) stimulus money into the quarter to bolster his election campaign.
According to a Money News article yesterday, Controversial Interview Exposes 5 Signs Stocks Will Collapse in 2013 The Obama Campaign was accused of dirty tricks for banning a video that portrayed our economy in a negative light.
“After putting $803,436 in Obama’s re-election campaign, a media giant attempted to keep Americans from seeing the video by banning it from their sites,” stated Aaron DeHoog, the financial publisher who is unapologetic for the release of controversial footage that has gained international attention.
The Obama Campaign outright LIED to us as this October 26 report will show:
“While we have more work to do, today’s GDP growth report, showing the 13th straight quarter of growth, is more evidence that our economy continues to come back from the worst recession since the Great Depression under President Obama’s leadership,” Obama campaign spokesman Adam Fetcher said in a statement.
Meanwhile the Middle and Upper Class along with businesses face even a greater economic challenge this quarter with Federal State and Local government’s out of control spending and the piling on of new taxes to confiscate even more of our treasure so as to replenish their constituency’s depleted political campaign coffers.
Meanwhile, “We the People” get the funny end of the lollipop stuck to us. Can we believe anything that this Administration says about our Economy, about the Fiscal Cliff, about the Debt Ceiling, about our Military, about Benghazi, about Terrorism, about National Security, about, Israel, about Gun Control, about the Environment, about Global Warming, about Illegal Immigration, about redistribution of Wealth, about Iran’s Nuclear Threat, about UN Treaties …?
Yesterday, Breitbart News reported that consumer confidencehad dropped to its lowest level in almost two years. Much of the media spun the number as the result of a payroll tax increase that hit millions who were repeatedly told by Obama that only the rich would see their taxes increase. Surprise! But the spin didn’t explain why consumer confidence had steadily dropped during the months prior. Well, now we know: The American economy has taken a nosedive.
For the first time in over three years, the U.S. Gross Domestic Product shrank. Between October and December of 2012, the GDP had a negative growth of 0.1. And let’s remember that this is the same quarter where we saw the media go into hyper-drive to spin Obama’s anemic job and GDP growth into a repeat of the Roaring Twenties.
The problem with the American economy is that Obama and his media can’t fool it. Happy talk and spin and distractions about contraception don’t create jobs or growth. You might be able to fool legions of people into voting a certain way, but you can’t fool them into spending and hiring and investing.
Apparently, though, the media and Obama have managed to fool themselves. Even theWall Street Journal calls today’s news “unexpected.” And anyone who watched Obama’s Inauguration speech knows that his failed economy and the millions suffering in it are either not on his radar or of no concern whatsoever. Obama spoke of many things, but not the economy. He’s in a war to win the culture, not to win anyone a job to lift them out of poverty.
The media is just as bad. The biggest story in our country today should be the increase in poverty and an unemployment crisis so dire our labor force has shrunk to thirty-year lows. But neither will speak of it. We do, however, know all about some idiot and his phony girlfriend. We know all about a “heckle” that didn’t happen. One wonders which is the bread and which is the circus.
The pickle both Obama and the media have put themselves in, though, is this: If either makes the economy a priority, that’s an admission Obama’s economy is in trouble. And so we find ourselves in a situation we’ve seen in other countries where the state and media have aligned — a situation where we’re told a bad economy is a good economy, and the victims of this propaganda are those suffering in a bad economy no one wants to admit exists.
Already the media’s spinning this GDP report in a way that says our economy tanked because the government didn’t spend enough. That’s right, annual trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see, but the media push to protect the State from blame and to use this terrible news as a way to further grow the State, is already on.
NBC’s Chief White House Correspondent, Chuck Todd, just assured America this was a one-time economic anomaly and that prosperity is right around the corner. If a job had been created every time a member of Obama’s media said this, we’d have full employment today.
Senator Marco Rubio in an interview with Greta Van Susteren on Fox talked about his plan for “Undocumented Immigrants.”
Even our so called rising star Republican political class can’t help but use the same political speak of the Progressive Left, who seek to legitimatize criminal behavior. According to Title 8 Section Section 1325 of the US Code of Federal Regulations:
“Improper Entry by Alien,” any citizen of any country other than the United States who:
Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;
has committed a federal crime.”
Further, one has to question the political motives of Senator Rubio. After all, a similar Amnesty law to that proposed by Rubio et al, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) was signed into law by President Reagan on November 6, 1986 who called it, “the most comprehensive reform of our immigration laws since 1952.”.
required employers to attest to their employees’ immigration status.
made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit unauthorized immigrants.
legalized certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants.
legalized illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt. About three million illegal immigrants were granted legal status.
The law turned out to be a complete and utter failure when you consider that, it did nothing to stem the flow of Illegal Immigration. It is estimated that we now have 4 to 6 times the 1986 illegal Alien population, residing in the United States when IRCA became law. Thus Senator Marco Rubio follows in the footsteps of his political elite predecessors and ignores George Santayana admonition that, “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
“ There is much talk about the need for “comprehensive immigration reform”. With that in mind it would be useful to review what we as a nation learned, or should have learned, from our last big experiment in the field, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).” (Ref: Center for Immigration Studies Article January 2013)
In MA alone 17,000 EBT card holders were unable to be identified in 2012. What percentage of these lost EBT cardholders are illegal Aliens? What about the fraud perpetrated by Illegal Aliens that are on Welfare, on Medicare and perpetrate felonious. Criminals that are stealing our hard earned treasure at a time when America faces debt crises after debt crisis and at at a time when every level of government can barely manage to provide care for its legal citizenry. The effect of Amnesty on our economy at this time would be nothing short of devestating.
Doesn’t Senator Rubio understand that the end game for illegal Aliens is a quid pro quo relationship, wherein the Democrat Party keeps them as a permanent government dependent underclass in return for their votes and political support. If Amnesty were to passe, these Illegal Aliens would then become a permanent dependent American underclass. These demographic trends have been causing dramatic political changes in our Southwestern states and if Amnesty were to be passed, this trend will befall our state as well.
The following is an article from Real Clear Politics:
Real Clear Politics
Rubio Finds Support on the Right for Immigration Plan
By Scott Conroy - January 22, 2013
With leaders from both parties calling on Congress to take up immigration reform this year, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has been meeting with news outlets and conservative opinion-shapers to lay out his vision for a plan that would offer temporary legal status to undocumented immigrants. Those applying would have to pass background checks and other tests designed to eventually lead from permanent residency to citizenship.
Though he has not yet introduced legislation, in trumpeting his sweeping proposals Rubio has seized a torch that in recent years burned several similarly ambitious Republican politicians. But in a sign of how quickly the parameters of the debate on this issue have shifted since President Obama’s re-election, prominent conservatives — many of whom were vocal in their opposition to previous similar plans — have been lavishing praise on Rubio’s ideas for reform.
On his nationally syndicated radio show, Sean Hannity said that Rubio’s plan was “probably the most thoughtful bill that I have heard heretofore,” while Fox News colleague Bill O’Reilly called the program “a good one.” Other purveyors of conservative thought, from Grover Norquist to Ralph Reed to David Brody, have also weighed in with positive reactions.
The most important seal of approval thus far may have come from Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, who had until recently been tied to 2012 running mate Mitt Romney’s policy of opposing “amnesty” for illegal immigrants (whom Romney had suggested could be encouraged to “self-deport”).
But Ryan has made clear that he, too, is ready to pivot on the issue.
“Senator Rubio is exactly right on the need to fix our broken immigration system,” Ryan wrote last week in a post on his Facebook page. “I support the principles he’s outlined: modernization of our immigration laws; stronger security to curb illegal immigration; and respect for the rule of law in addressing the complex challenge of the undocumented population. Our future depends on an immigration system that works.”
Rubio spent much of the first half of last year trying to drum up support for his plan to offer visas to the children of illegal immigrants who have served in the military or attended college — an alternative to the Democratic-backed DREAM Act. But when the president issued an executive order that achieved similar ends, Rubio criticized him for having sidestepped Congress.
Since Obama’s re-election, which came with the support of more than 70 percent of Hispanic voters, Rubio’s team has been heartened by the stark sea change they have seen on the issue.
“Overall, the reaction’s been really positive, and there really hasn’t been any significant opposition to it,” Rubio spokesperson Alex Conant said of the senator’s plan. “People have made good points about the proposals, and we welcome a healthy debate. This isn’t something [where] the senator just woke up one morning and decided to do. He’s been thinking about these issues for years now.”
Rubio’s goal is to pass immigration legislation this year, and the political implications for the rising GOP star could be long-lasting. The first-term senator is widely expected to run for president in 2016. If he does, his first political hurdle to overcome would likely be in Iowa, where conservative hardliners on illegal immigration have long held sway.
In the 2008 nominating fight, John McCain’s efforts to promote comprehensive immigration reform were perhaps his greatest challenge in Iowa — where he finished a distant fourth in that year’s caucuses. He was able to recover and win the Republican nomination, but immigration became an unshakeable albatross for a more recent GOP White House hopeful.
When Texas Gov. Rick Perry suggested in a primary debate that people who disagreed with a Texas law offering in-state tuition rates to children of illegal immigrants “don’t have a heart,” the resulting criticism from conservatives grew into a firestorm in the Hawkeye State. Perry’s opponents and right-leaning activists hammered him for the comment, which he was forced to spend precious time on the stump trying to explain away.
But Republican consultant Bob Haus, who helped run Perry’s Iowa campaign, predicted that Rubio’s efforts on immigration reform would not sting him in a similar manner, if he does run in 2016.
“There are now more Republican leaders who are working to craft sensible, workable solutions than trying to simply derail everything,” Haus said. “These leaders are changing the debate. Republicans aren’t just against everything related to immigration. Now they’re for something. That signals a paradigm shift, and it will be a good one for the Republican Party.”
Despite those shifting sentiments on the right, however, there will no doubt be more than a few influential Republican voices in Iowa who remain resistant to Rubio’s proposals. Steve Deace, an influential conservative radio host in the nation’s first voting state, made clear on Twitter last week that he had no intention of getting behind Rubio’s plan.
“Strangely I am not reassured by Bill O’Reilly’s endorsement of Marco Rubio’s amnesty..err..immigration plan,” Deace tweeted.
During the 2012 primaries, Romney largely succeeded in his efforts to stake out a position to the right of his Republican opponents on the issue. But his short-term political gain became a Pyrrhic victory when the general election came around and the Obama campaign was able to paint him as an extremist on the issue.
Some former members of Romney’s team are among those taking that lesson to heart, seeing Rubio’s efforts as both politically savvy and a near necessity for the GOP’s future.
David Kochel, who helmed Romney’s near-victory in the 2012 Iowa caucuses, suggested that Rubio and other Republicans with their eye on the White House are wise to demonstrate a willingness to be a part of the solution to a difficult challenge.
“I think there will always be some folks in the conservative entertainment industry who will bang away at Republicans who want to work on immigration,” Kochel said. “But it’s a real problem, and not just a party problem. Time to look it in the eye and solve it. We can do it without compromising our principles.”
Read the entire article and comments at: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/01/22/rubio_finds_support_on_the_right_for_immigration_plan_116748-2.html
Pollster: ‘I cannot remember a time when America was this despondent’
January 19, 2013
by BOB UNRUH
Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.
Editor’s note:This is another in a series of “WND/WENZEL POLLS” conducted exclusively for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting companyWenzel Strategies.
Barack Obama has led the nation into a “full-on depression,” according to a new poll that indicates only one in three people believes America is going in the right direction.
The poll shows a whopping 38 percent of Democrats believe America in general is “on the wrong track” or they are not sure.
The results are from a telephone poll conducted for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies. It was taken Jan. 9-12 and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 3.22 percentage points.
On the basic question, 34 percent said the nation is going the right direction, 60 percent said America is on the wrong track and 6 percent said they were unsure.
The 60 percent included an overwhelming 84 percent of Republicans, a strong 66 percent majority of independents and even 30 percent of the Democrats.
“At the beginning of a second presidential term, you generally expect the country to be in full-bore optimism, in part as an endorsement of the re-elected president and in part a reflection of the nation settled in its current course,” said Fritz Wenzel, president of his strategies organization.
“We saw that with Reagan, we saw that with Clinton, and we saw that with George W. Bush. But that is not what we find with Obama,” he said.
“The country is already in full-on depression, as just 34 percent said they think things in America are headed in the right direction. Even among Democrats, just 62 percent said they think things are headed in the right direction, an abysmal figure for the president’s own fellow party members.”
He continued: “There is just no sugar-coating this – America may have liked Obama more than Romney, but they have no confidence in his leadership. This spells nothing but tough sledding for the nation over the next four years. Politically, it’s bound to get very ugly as the nation continues in a downward spiral and leaders in Washington point fingers across the political aisle. Forget solutions and reform for the next four years – the only thing coming from Washington will be blame for our sorry condition. This survey finding reflects that the nation is in the process of giving up hope.”
Even among those who called themselves “very liberal,” only 59 percent approve of the direction the nation is moving. At the opposite end of the scale, 90 percent of the “very conservative” said the nation is going down the wrong path.
Only 45 percent of Americans believe the nation’s best days still are ahead. Fifty-five percent said they are long gone.
“I cannot remember a time when America was this despondent. Our survey shows 55 percent of American adults believe America’s best days are now behind us, while just 45 percent said they think the brightest days are still ahead,” said Wenzel.
“Here we are, four years into a recession, with Washington acting – and spending – like the economy is booming and everything is rosy. This shocking disconnect between Washington leaders and the American public has perhaps never been greater,” he said.
“This finding is undoubtedly a reflection of the belief among most Americans that their leader has lost his way. Or maybe they just think that he doesn’t believe in America as that shining city on a hill, and so have lost their hope in their own country. It could very well be, at least for some, a despondent reaction to his re-election and the in-your-face attitude that the White House has adopted in dealing with the Congress in general, Republicans in Washington in particular, and Obama’s callous disregard for the massive problems that are about to destroy our nation,” Wenzel said.
“His first solution to every problem is to increase government spending and regulation, which Americans have consistently rejected. A majority still opposes Obamacare, and a majority opposed TARP and auto bailout. The idea that the nation may well have passed the point of no return in many areas may well be behind this shocking poll finding.”
Barack Hussein Obama’s agenda is to demonize fiscal conservatives so they he can continue to give away “Obama phones” from his “stash” to his constituency. Actually his “stash” is a bunch of generational IOUs to our children and grandchildren that won’t be worth the paper their printed on.
Let’s try to break down the consequences of Obama’s fondness for a disgraceful Spending appetite.
The Annual Income to Federal Government $2.2 trillion
Obama will Spend$3.8 trillion in the coming fiscal year.
The Debt for this year alone $1.6 trillion
The national debt is $16.5 trillion
Since Trillions are too big for people to comprehend let’ s strike the last 8 zeros and treat these Federal figures as if they were being used in your household.
$38,000 Spending - $ 22,000 Income = $16,000 Household deficit spending this year
$165,000 Cumulative debt + $16,000 Current Debt = $181,000 Total Cumulative Household Debt
This is a Problem!!!
The Total Cuts in the recent Budget Control Act were 38.5 billion.
Strike the zeros and it takes the cuts amount to a measly$38.50 from the household Deficit debt this year or:
$16,000 – $38.50 = $15,961.50 Your Household Deficit spending for this year alone
$165000 + $15,961.50 = $180,961.50 Total Cumulative Household Debt
Yes this is the Obama Math in play. How long could you or would your creditors allow you to rack up these credit card charges without forcing you into bankruptcy? Yet we have been doing just this for decades now. Once our creditors acknowledge our inability to pay off our debt, our interest rate, as we have seen in Greece, will be so onerous that there will be riots in the streets when basic government necessities can no longer be provided. We’re not talking about “Obama phones”, but rather necessities like food medicine etc.
Our federal government can and must do better than that.
Whenever the President and Congress talk about Borrowing, we should look at it in household terms. In the above example it should be evident to all, that there is really no real ability and therefore no real intention to pay back the accumulated $15,961.50 debt.
Borrowing is when you ask a lender to give you money and based upon your financial position, he agrees and you agree to pay it back in some predetermined term at an agreed upon interest rate.
What is occurring in the above example and what the Obama Administration is advocating is generational theft from our Children and grandchildren who have no voice in the matter!
This generational borrowing is stealing, and criminal behavior that must be punished because we must Stop Stealing from our Children and Stop the Overspending.
While the insurance industry reports loses from hurricane Sandy at about $20B, NY region Congressmen lament about the pain their constituents are feeling and cast aspersions at an uncaring Republican led House, they forget to mention that the pork filled bill is more than DOUBLE the estimated Losses.
They are using their constituents as a Trojan Horse to hide yet again,billions in pork to connected contributors. This while we have just concluded the Fiscal Cliff Legislation with No spending cuts and contemplate the Debt Limit!
Sounds to me that Congress is back to their old tricks and don’t give a damnn about their constitutiencies or the debt load to present and future generations.
Insurance Losses from Sandy to be $20 Billion or More
Published January 08, 2013
Dow Jones Newswires
The insurance industry will likely post losses totaling $20 billion or more from Hurricane Sandy, as losses reported so far reached $16 billion to $17 billion, Fitch Ratings said.
That estimate would put the total industry loss just below the high end of the range of the most recent insured losses estimated by third-party catastrophe modelers, the ratings firm said.
Fitch added that the complexity of assessing the losses from such a large and intense storm over such a large area–particularly when evaluating the impacts of flooding and business interruption claims–has created uncertainty in estimating total insurance losses from Sandy. With that in consideration, insurance companies were unable to report credible loss estimates until almost two months after the storm hit on Oct. 29.
Due to the size and nature of Sandy, a larger proportion of losses were incurred from commercial lines versus personal lines, Fitch said. Primary writers with substantial Northeast catastrophe exposures are incurring the most significant losses, with reinsurers taking a more reduced, although still meaningful, share.
Write to Ben Fox Rubin at firstname.lastname@example.org
Subscribe to WSJ: http://online.wsj.com?mod=djnwires
Obama To Boehner: “We Don’t Have A Spending Problem” – WJS
Pelosi: More Tax Revenues Must Be Part Of Any Debt Deal
Boehner: Obama Blames “Health Care Problem” For Deficit -WSJ
Democrats Pushing For Another $1 Trillion In Tax Revenue – Rpt
Obama to Boehner: ‘We Don’t Have a Spending Problem’
By Ben Shapiro, Breitbart.com
In an interview with Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal, newly re-elected House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) opened up about President Obama’s utter unwillingness to cut a single dollar from federal spending. In a stunning admission, Obama reportedly told Boehner, “We don’t have a spending problem.”
Boehner added that President Obama continues to maintain that America’s federal deficit is caused not by governmental overspending but by “a health-care problem.” Said Boehner, “They blame all of the fiscal woes on our health-care system.” Boehner told Obama, “Clearly we have a health-care problem, which is about to get worse with Obamacare. But, Mr. President, we have a very serious spending problem.” Obama eventually replied, “I’m getting tired of hearing you say that.”
Obama may be tired of hearing Boehner talk about a spending problem, particularly when Obama has been re-elected on the basis of ignoring government spending. Nonetheless, America does have a spending problem, which Obama is steadfastly ignoring. “He’s so ideological himself,” Boehner explained, “and he’s unwilling to take on the left of his own party.” That’s why Obama refused to raise the retirement age for Medicare after agreeing to it. “He admitted in meetings that he couldn’t sell things to his own members,” said Boehner. “But he didn’t even want to try … We could never get him to step up.”
MARK STEYN: ‘CLIFF’ BILL ‘SIGNALS TO WORLD THAT AMERICAN ERA IS OVER’
FOX NEWS: Fox and Friends’ Brian Kilmeade sat down with best-selling author and columnist Mark Steyn to discuss the bill that was passed last night to avoid the fiscal cliff’s across-the-board tax hikes and spending cuts. President Obama applauded the bill, which raises tax rates only on those making more than $450,000 a year, puts off spending cuts and extends unemployment benefits. It also increases by two percent the Social Security payroll tax on all workers.
But Steyn believes the current spending, which is fueling a rapidly-growing national debt that has surpassed $16.4 trillion, is unsustainable and at some point will have to be supported by more taxes on all Americans.
“In a sense America voted for big government in November. What it didn’t vote for is the willingness to pay for it. We have the biggest gap between revenue and spending of any nation on Earth. So people have got to get real about this. If you want Swedish-style government, you have to pay Swedish-style taxes. And if you don’t, you have to grow up and learn to live within your means,” said Steyn.
The author of the book “After America” went on to point out that if the current debt-fueled spending continues, “you’re basically signaling to the world that the American era is over.”Kilmeade then asked what Steyn what he thinks President Obama plans to do over the next four years to address the situation.
“I think he’s got another agenda. … The thing to do is to get people used to the spending, which is about 25 percent of GDP. If he’s gotten people used to the spending, at some point people will have to pay for it the way the Norwegians pay for it, the way the Belgians pay for it. They will have to pay taxes that match what the government is spending. Obama has figured out if you get ‘em used to the spending, then two, three years down the line the taxes will fall his way,” said Steyn.
See the entire story and comments at: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/01/02/Mark-Steyn-Out-of-Control-Spending-Signals-to-World-That-American-Era-Is-Over
Taxes Are Going Up!! What Congress Past Was To Try To Keep some Taxes The same!!!!
One Step Closer To Europe? Congress Passes Deal To Avert ‘Cliff” – Stuart Varney
Smoking Mirrors There are No Cuts!!!
Here’s The Deal: $1 Spending Cuts For Every $10 In Tax Hikes
Tax And Spend – Deal Cuts $15 Billion, Raises Taxes $620 Billion
Here’s The Deal: $1 Spending Cuts For Every $10 In Tax Hikes – Judge Andrew Napolitano
The House gave its approval Tuesday night to the Senate bill halting massive tax hikes and delaying a risky round of spending cuts, sending the package to the president’s desk and likely averting for now an economy-stalling fiscal crisis.
The 257-167vote came after a day of high drama on Capitol Hill, during which conservative House lawmakers voiced serious concern about the Senate bill’s lack of spending cuts.
Rank-and-file Republicans initially predicted they would tinker with the package, raising the possibility the Senate would abandon it and nothing would get done before the new congressional class is seated Thursday.
But House leaders soon learned they did not have a majority behind any spending-cut plan, and allowed the straight vote. More Democrats supported the bill than Republicans.
The result, once Obama signs it, is that tax hikes that technically kicked in Jan. 1 for most Americans would largely be halted.
The bill would nix the tax increases for families making under $450,000, while letting rates rise for those making above that threshold. It would also extend unemployment insurance for another year, while patching up a host of other expiring provisions and delaying automatic spending cuts for two months. Those cuts, which would hit defense heavily, will instead be offset with a blend of tax increases and other spending cuts.
Americans will still see a 2-point increase this month in their Social Security tax, as Congress did not opt to extend that payroll tax holiday.
The House was able to shoehorn in the vote before the markets open Wednesday. Uncertainty about a deal threatened to wreak havoc on Wall Street. And economists warned that any prolonged stalemate into 2013 threatened to pull the broader economy back into a recession. In total, more than $600 billion in tax hikes and spending cuts were set to take effect this year.
The vote Tuesday came amid rising pressure from House Democrats and the Senate side, which approved the bill early Tuesday morning. Democrats made clear that they would pin the blame squarely on House Republicans if the tax hikes were not averted.
“This is the House’s wisdom in making the best of a bad situation,” one House GOP leadership aide told Fox News. “We had a bad hand from the start, but we’re avoiding being blamed for taking us off the cliff.”
Still, a number of House Republicans came out against the package, including No. 2 House Republican, Eric Cantor.
“I do not support it,” Cantor told reporters after a closed-door meeting with fellow Republicans.
Rep. Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio, said earlier that the sentiment among House Republicans was to amend the bill to incorporate more spending cuts. Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., echoed the statement.
But other Republicans, while voicing opposition to the bill, acknowledged that it could pass the House.
Congress already missed the New Year’s Eve deadline for action, which technically triggered tax hikes. Without a resolution soon, taxes would have jumped by $2,400 on average for families with incomes of $50,000 to $75,000, according to a study by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. And because consumers would get less of their paychecks to spend, businesses and jobs would suffer as well.
House conservatives had begun voicing frustration Monday night about the lopsided ratio of tax increases in the plan, as compared with net spending cuts. The bill contained roughly $620 billion in tax hikes, and just a fraction of that in spending cuts. As one House Republican told Fox News, “I can’t imagine a ratio such as that warming our fiscal hearts.”
Not all Democrats were on board either. Many voiced frustration that tax hikes would only affect those making above $450,000 – when President Obama originally campaigned on raising them for households making above $250,000.
“Looks like a very bad deal the way this is shaping up,” Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said Monday. Harkin voted against the Senate bill early Tuesday morning, as did Sens. Tom Carper, D-Del.; Mike Lee, R-Utah; Rand Paul, R-Ky.; Richard Shelby, R-Ala.; Michael Bennet, D-Colo.; Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa; and Marco Rubio, R-Fla.
The fiscal deal, though, still pushes off a permanent decision on the spending cuts until two months down the road, when lawmakers could find themselves in a similar position. And lawmakers are poised to renew a fight in a matter of weeks over raising the debt ceiling – which the U.S. government would have hit Dec. 31 if not for the Treasury Department taking emergency measures.
Fox News’ Ed Henry, Chad Pergram and Mike Emanuel contributed to this report.
“We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” -
– Winston Churchill
“When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing–when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors–when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you– when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self sacrifice- you may know that your society is doomed.”
– Ayn Rand
Our Political Class is considering confiscating your private retirement accountknown as your 401k in order to “pay down the deficit?” A total deficit that is now being estimated at over $86 Trillion. Far Left Socialist professor, Teresa Ghilarducci of the New School of Social Research, describes 401(k)s and related plans as a failed experiment. For about ten years she has argued for government confiscation of 401k plans. In October 2008, Democrats were so enthralled with her unconstitutional confiscatory plan that they actually asked her to testify before their subcommittee.
After her testimony, James Pethokoukis wrote in Money on October 23d that:
“Ghilarducci would offer a lousy 3 percent return. The long-run return of the stock market, adjusted for inflation, is more like 7 percent. Look at it this way: Ten thousand dollars growing at 3 percent a year for 40 years leaves you with roughly $22,000. But $10,000 growing at 7 percent a year for 40 years leaves you with $150,000. That is a high price to pay for what Ghilarducci describes as the removal of “a source of financial anxiety and…fruitless discussions with brokers and financial sales agents, who are also desperate for more fees and are often wrong about markets.” Please, I’ll take a bit of worry for an additional $128,000.”
Would you believe that Ghilarducci’s plan is now actively being discussed in the “Cliff Talks” . Not so good you say? It gets worse. Also being floated is the idea that when you pass on to your Great Reward, your annunity would terminate. There would be no payout to your heirs. If you already feel like the government has stolen your retirement through the Social Security ponzi scheme, you had better speak out before your 401k is seized and redistributed to freeloaders as a solution to ward off the fiscal cliff.
The following article from our friends at the Pittsburgh Tea Party Movement demonstrates statistics that indicates that Pennsylvania is already well on the road to Obam-Nomicsand a “Welfare State”.
Pittsburgh Tea Party Movement
The Blaze has an outstanding article ‘Welfare Nation’: The Sad Truth which includes a study by Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Please check out the study from our Secretary of Public Welfare.The article includes facts such as:
For every 1.65 employed persons in the private sector, one person receives welfare assistance;
For every 1.25 employed persons in the private sector, one person receives welfare assistance or works for the government;
It makes more financial sense for a single mom to earn $29,000 and get government subsidies than for that single mom to earn $69,000; and
It is now more lucrative – in the form of actual disposable income – to sit, do nothing, and collect various welfare entitlements, than to work, as shown below:
This morning, my colleague Lori Montgomery reported that Democrats are increasingly willing to allow the United States to fall off the so-called “fiscal cliff” at the end of this year to get Republicans to agree to allow higher rates on wealthy taxpayers. Which raises the question — what the heck is the “fiscal cliff”?
What is it? How big is it?
The term is wonk-speak for a series of major policy changes that will happen automatically at the end of this year if Congress does nothing. The big players on the tax side are the Bush tax cuts and the payroll tax cut. On the spending side, the automatic cuts included in last summer’s debt ceiling deal will take effect. But there’s a lot more, as you can see in this table from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget:
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
The combined effect will be a huge fiscal contraction, one which, according to conventional economic theory, could pose a real threat to the economic recovery. Here’s how the major provision break down by category, courtesy of the CBO:
By far the biggest provision is the Bush tax cuts, followed by the payroll tax cut and the cost of indexing the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) eligibility cutoff to inflation.
When will it happen?
The payroll tax break expires this December, and the Bush tax cuts expire Jan. 1, meaning that new, higher rates will take effect the following year. Since payroll taxes are deducted from wages every week, the effect there will be immediate, whereas the income tax rate increases only affect income starting in 2013. If employers adjust withholding, the effects could come sooner, but if there are logistical hurdles to that, the economic dent could be delayed.
The sequestration cuts will take effect starting in January too, meaning their impact, like the payroll tax cut’s expiration, will be more immediate. The cuts are evenly split, with $27 billion each in 2013 for defense and non-defense spending, plus $12 billion in cuts to Medicare.
What will happen to the economy?
The CBO estimates that the total effect of these provisions is a 3.9 percent reduction in the growth rate of GDP next year — enough to make the year’s total growth rate negative, plunging the country back into recession. What’s more, the mere anticipation of this change will reduce GDP growth by 0.5 percent this year. However, this change is not evenly distributed between the cliff’s components, as this helpful chart from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget shows:
So letting us fall over the fiscal cliff would be very bad in the short-term, and a deal that offset some of the changes would do a lot to mitigate that. The CBO estimates that if the payroll tax cut is allowed to expire but the other provisions are extended, growth will fall by 2.3 percent — not good, but it would leave the overall growth rate still positive.
Curiously, both deficit hawks and groups focused on promoting the interests of low-income people are more bullish about the cliff than the CBO is. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, for one, has noted that since most of the economic damage of the cliff is concentrated in the payroll tax cut expiring and the debt ceiling’s cuts, letting the more expensive Bush tax cuts expire while extending those provisions would have a much lesser impact.
Some deficit hawks are also sanguine about the cliff. A report from the Carlyle Groupargues that going over the cliff is actually preferable to extending these policies and increasing the long-term deficit. “This automatic deficit reduction package would largely solve near-to-medium term fiscal problems,” the authors, Jason Thomas and David Marchick, argue. But it’s worth noting that while the expiration of these provisions reduces the deficit, the effect on growth actually grows the deficit by $47 billion between 2012 and 2013. This is easily overwhelmed by the deficit reduction of the actual provisions, but it’s a reminder that growth is an important and frequently undervalued tool for deficit reduction.
What could stop it?
The simplest way to prevent the fiscal cliff is simply to prevent any of its components from taking effect. But few want to do this. This would involve extending the Bush tax cuts again, which goes against Obama’s deficit reduction plan, and extending payroll tax cuts that were supposed to be temporary. Democrats don’t want to the former, and no one wants to do the latter indefinitely. So the likeliest deal would involve preventing most of the elements of the fiscal cliff from taking effect — such as by making the doc fix and AMT patch permanent — while limiting or eliminating the Bush and payroll tax provisions.
Here’s my estimate of how a range of possible plans would affect growth, using the CBO’s multipliers and the OMB’s estimates of the cost of extending the middle-class provisions of the Bush tax cuts. I measured the impact if nothing changes, with and without the Bush tax cuts, with only the Bush tax cuts on middle-income people, and with and without the payroll tax cut:
All scenarios reduce growth, but removing all provisions except the Bush tax cut extension, and especially the Bush tax cut extension for high-income people, reduce it by a lot less.
There’s also the possibility that the fiscal cliff will be averted by a “grand bargain” on the debt of the kind that was attempted last summer. A bipartisan group of senators ranging from Chris Coons to Mark Warner to Lamar Alexander to Tom Coburn has been meeting to try to hash out just such a deal. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer’s “go big” working groupis focused on a similar solution, and Paul Ryan has touted his debt plan as a potential way to avoid the cliff. The idea is that by delaying some of the near-term contraction in favor of longer-run deficit reduction, we could get the best of both worlds: no recession in the near term, no debt crisis in the long-term. Such a deal could also include tax reform that cuts harmful tax expenditures. But as we’ve seen again and again, it’s easier to talk about the possibility of such a deal than it is to get 60 senators and 218 representatives to go along with it.
A few images for Democrats to ponder before they vote Tuesday.
If you haven’t been watching the news for the past 4 years – you have a lot of catching up to do. Your Hope & Change pResident has squandered your tax dollars and your national security – and our American sovereignty. It may take us 10 years under good presidents to recover; 20 years to catch back up.
Fast and Furious. dead Border agents, and ‘Executive Privilege’.
Sky-high unemployment despite the ‘Stimulus’. Industry and business paralyzed awaiting the 2012 Election outcome because of ObamaCare.|
ZerO’s disrespect. Obama’s feet always up on our furniture.
The open secret – Valerie Jarrett – the realpresident – born in Iran.
President Photo-Op – obviously a pussy – and probably gay.
Bowing to rivals, making deals with enemies, and selling out our allies.
An utter fool blowing our money on ‘green energy’ while energy costs skyrocket – ashe had promised!
Wealth re-distribution through massive borrowing and adding $6 Trillion to our National Debt!
International wealth re-distribution by stopping domestic drilling and refining – and using Billion$ to support offshore drilling in Brazil and refining in Columbia.
Angry, bitter, vengeful, and everything is Bush’s fault.
The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.
The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.
You should notice that the Blue seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate curve or trend diverts (Goes in the opposite direction) from previous administration’s unemployment data.
This suggests that the Barack Hussein Administration is somehow “cooking the books”.
Chilling Letter from Proctor & Gamble to Obama Who would have thought, and yet many are thinking it.
By Lou Pritchett, Procter & Gamble
A LETTER FROM A PROCTER AND GAMBLE EXECUTIVE TO THE PRESIDENT
* THE LAST SENTENCE IS THE MOST CHILLING
Lou Pritchett is one of corporate America ‘s true living legends
- an Acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the world’s highest
Rated speakers. Successful corporate executives everywhere recognize
Him as the foremost leader in change management.. Lou changed the way
America does business by creating an audacious concept that came to
Be known as “partnering.”
Pritchett rose from soap salesman to Vice-President, Sales and Customer Development for Procter and Gamble
and over the course of 36 years; made corporate history.
AN OPENLETTER TOPRESIDENT OBAMA
Dear President Obama:
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike Any of the others, you truly scare me.
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no Visible signs of support.
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth Growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus Don’t understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility and ‘class’, always blaming others.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned Yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to Publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail..
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the ‘blame America ‘ Crowd and deliver this message abroad.
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style Country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system With a government controlled one.
You scare me because you prefer ‘wind mills’ to responsibly Capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose That lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of Living in the world.
You scare me because you have begun to use ‘extortion’ tactics Against certain banks and corporations.
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from Challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider Opposing points of view from intelligent people.
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both Omnipotent and omniscient.
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything You do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaugh’s, Hannitys, O’Reillys and Becks who offer opposing, Conservative points of view.
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will Probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
* * This letter was sent to the NY Times but they never acknowledged it.
Big surprise. Since it hit the Internet, however, it has had over
500,000 hits. Keep it going. All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for
good men and women to do nothing.. It’s happening right now.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent last month, dropping below 8 percent for the first time in nearly four years. The rate fell because more people found work, a trend that could impact the presidential election.
The Labor Department says employers added 114,000 jobs in September. The economy also created 86,000 more jobs in July and August than first estimated. Wages rose in September and more people started looking for work. The revisions show employers added 146,000 jobs per month from July through September, up from 67,000 in the previous three months. The unemployment rate fell from 8.1 percent in August, matching its level in January 2009 when President Barack Obama took office. The decline could help Obama, who is coming off a disappointing debate against Mitt Romney.
Barack Hussein Obama and our nitwit Vice-President Joe Biden , if re-elected , promise to let the Bush tax cuts expire which will result in increased taxes at every income level.
What happens to you if the cuts expire? The Tax Foundation has done the math and provides a handy map to show the likely economic impact on people in every state. (For the record, the Tax Foundation describes themselves as, “a nonpartisan tax research group based in Washington, D.C.”)
The Five States Facing The Biggest Tax Increases (avg. per household):
New York $5,542
New Jersey $5030
Meanwhile, according to a report from the State House News Service our own House Speaker Robert DeLeo, in collaboration with Deval Patrick is hinting at raising taxes in 2013 in the middle of a recession, in order to support Taxachusetts’s burgeoning spending pogram. Taking their cue from Barack Hussein Obama, they will likely spring details of their proposals afterthe election when they and their minions are safely back in office.
On top of the Federal Tax Increases for 2013 and according to the Wall Street Journal a Loss of $4,019 in real Incomeduring the Obama years we are now looking at additional MA State Tax increases as well. Could there be a stronger reason to help Fiscally Responsible, Small Government Championing, Free Market Conservative candidates this fall?
“Flat tax collections in September have left state government trailing budgeted revenue benchmarks by $95 million one quarter of the way into the new fiscal year, according to figures released Wednesday by the Department of Revenue. Collections last month of more than $2.2 billion were up $8 million over September 2011, but were still $32 million shy of the monthly benchmark. Tax collections are up 0.03 percent over the first quarter of fiscal 2013.
Murray and DeLeo over the past few years have embraced the no-new-taxes approach after voting in 2009 to boost the sales tax by 25 percent to 6.25 percent. Though some more liberal Democrats on Beacon Hill have advocated for higher cigarette taxes to pay for health programs, members of the House and Senate from both parties have largely cheered the reluctance of leaders to force votes on new revenue, particularly in an election year.”
House Minority Leader Brad Jones of North Reading on Thursday said DeLeo’s reluctance to rule out tax hikes next year was “disappointing.”
“I will say that I am well aware that numerous discussions have been going on about increased taxes and that obviously members of the majority party don’t want to have those go public until after the election.
The 4 October 2012 press release from State House News follows:
ON RESISTANCE TO NEW TAXES, DeLEO TAKING WAIT-AND-SEE APPROACH FOR 2013
By Matt Murphy and Mike Deehan
STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE
STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, OCT. 4, 2012….After holding the line on new taxes since 2009, the pledge by legislative leaders to not upset the delicate economic recovery by increasing broad-based taxes or fees on residents and business is showing signs of cracking.
House Speaker Robert DeLeo told the News Service this week he doesn’t yet know if his proscription against new taxes or fees will apply to the 2013 legislative year when the Legislature is expected to address long-term financing of the state’s transportation system and may need to look to new sources of revenue.
DeLeo said he wants “to see where the numbers fall on next year’s budget” and with transportation financing before making a decision on whether to rule tax hikes in or out, a line the Winthrop Democrat has drawn the past several years, and which Democrats have followed, prior to the release of the House budget in April.
“That’s never been a desire of mine to increase taxes. But on the other hand . . . I’m smart enough to know that until you see the figures of what you’re working with, you don’t make any pledges.” DeLeo, the former House budget chief, said after a meeting Tuesday afternoon with UMass officials and local entrepreneurs.
Senate President Therese Murray last year deferred to the House, noting tax bills originate in there, while working to craft the Senate’s spending blueprint for the year that began July 1, though she showed no signs of appetite herself for higher taxes. Through a spokesman, Murray declined comment on the appetite for taxes next session.
Flat tax collections in September have left state government trailing budgeted revenue benchmarks by $95 million one quarter of the way into the new fiscal year, according to figures released Wednesday by the Department of Revenue. Collections last month of more than $2.2 billion were up $8 million over September 2011, but were still $32 million shy of the monthly benchmark. Tax collections are up 0.03 percent over the first quarter of fiscal 2013.
Murray and DeLeo over the past few years have embraced the no-new-taxes approach after voting in 2009 to boost the sales tax by 25 percent to 6.25 percent. Though some more liberal Democrats on Beacon Hill have advocated for higher cigarette taxes to pay for health programs, members of the House and Senate from both parties have largely cheered the reluctance of leaders to force votes on new revenue, particularly in an election year.
House Minority Leader Brad Jones of North Reading on Thursday said DeLeo’s reluctance to rule out tax hikes next year was “disappointing.”
“I will say that I am well aware that numerous discussions have been going on about increased taxes and that obviously members of the majority party don’t want to have those go public until after the election but they are absolutely underway and going on,” Jones said.
DeLeo has used his position over the past few years to thwart proposals by Gov. Deval Patrick to tax candy and soda, raise taxes on cigarettes and expand the scope of the state’s five-cent bottle redemption law, an idea encouraged by some environmentalists to improve recycling rates and generate $20 million in new revenue.
Any new debate over taxes in Massachusetts will also likely play out over a backdrop of the national discussion about how to address the federal debt and deficit, including the looming expiration of tax cuts on Jan.1 that could increase payroll taxes on Massachusetts residents and millions of Americans.
With unemployment at 6.3 percent after having risen moderately over the past two months, legislative leaders like DeLeo, if he wins reelection as anticipated, will be challenged to come up with a justification for new revenue after years of touting their reluctance to raise taxes as a selling point of their fiscal discipline and rationale for new businesses to locate and grow in Massachusetts.
In May, DeLeo published an open letter in the local Menlo Park, California newspaper to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg suggesting the company, and others like it in Silicon Valley, consider expanding in Massachusetts.
“Unlike California, where Governor Brown just announced a $16 Billion budget deficit sure to mean massive cuts in services and increases in government revenues, Massachusetts leaders have passed budget-after-budget on-time and with no new taxes or fees,” DeLeo wrote. “There is no denying California’s strengths, but a lot has changed in Massachusetts in the eight years since Facebook moved out. It’s a place where young workers, start-up companies and innovation entities want to be.”
Jones said that in addition to consideration of raising gas taxes, he has heard mention of raising the state income tax from 5.25 percent to 5.95 percent.
“Unfortunately the Democrats don’t want to have that discussion before the election because they know the public isn’t going to be welcome to it, isn’t going to be open to it. People are still hurting. They’re very apprehensive. We have a fragile economy,” Jones said.
Jones said there is a “reasonable consensus” that some people would like to put more resources into transportation and infrastructure, but said the idea of “going down the tax path is a dangerous one.”
“I think we’re going to be faced with the false choice of, well, we have to raise taxes to do this as opposed to, well, isn’t some of it maybe reprioritizing spending?” Jones said.
Citizens for Limited Taxation earlier this week rolled out endorsements of 40 legislative candidates, including 17 incumbents – all Republicans – who scored well on the group’s issues test and signed a “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” to “oppose and vote against any and all effort to increase taxes.”
Through its political action committee, CLT also gave maximum donations of $500 to many of its endorsees, including candidates challenging Sen. Murray and Reps. Thomas Calter (D-Kingston), Thomas Sannicandro (D-Ashland), Carolyn Dykema (D-Holliston), John Rogers (D-Norwood) and James O’Day (D-West Boylston.