|
|
From time to time, we run across columns or articles by others who make what Curt thinks are very insightful points about the political or cultural situation in our country today, and will share them with you here. We don’t necessarily endorse every word, nor the writer’s life or other columns! But we hope you enjoy these, and we plan to update this on a regular basis. Comments (pro or con!) are welcome, too.
|
The stunning decline of Barack Obama
10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in meltdown
By Nile Gardiner World
Last updated: August 12th, 2010
The last few weeks have been a nightmare for President Obama, in a summer of discontent in the United States which has deeply unsettled the ruling liberal elites, so much so that even the Left has begun to turn against the White House. While the anti-establishment Tea Party movement has gained significant ground and is now a rising and powerful political force to be reckoned with, many of the president’s own supporters as well as independents are rapidly losing faith in Barack Obama, with open warfare breaking out between the White House and the left-wing of the Democratic Party. While conservatism in America grows stronger by the day, the forces of liberalism are growing increasingly weaker and divided.
Against this backdrop, the president’s approval ratings have been sliding dramatically all summer, with the latest Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll of US voters dropping to minus 22 points, the lowest point so far for Barack Obama since taking office. While just 24 per cent of American voters strongly approve of the president’s job performance, almost twice that number, 46 per cent, strongly disapprove.According to Rasmussen, 65 per cent of voters believe the United States is going down the wrong track, including 70 per cent of independents.
The RealClearPolitics average of polls now has President Obama at over 50 per cent disapproval, a remarkably high figure for a president just 18 months into his first term. Strikingly, the latest USA Today/Gallup survey has the President on just 41 per cent approval, with 53 per cent disapproving.
There are an array of reasons behind the stunning decline and political fall of President Obama, chief among them fears over the current state of the US economy, with widespread concern over high levels of unemployment, the unstable housing market, and above all the towering budget deficit. Americans are increasingly rejecting President Obama’s big government solutions to America’s economic woes, which many fear will lead to the United States sharing the same fate as Greece.
Growing disillusionment with the Obama administration’s handling of the economy as well as health care and immigration has gone hand in hand with mounting unhappiness with the President’s aloof and imperial style of leadership, and a growing perception that he is out of touch with ordinary Americans, especially at a time of significant economic pain. Barack Obama’s striking absence of natural leadership ability (and blatant lack of experience) has played a big part in undermining his credibility with the US public, with his lacklustre handling of the Gulf oil spill coming under particularly intense fire.
On the national security and foreign policy front, President Obama has not fared any better. His leadership on the war in Afghanistan has been confused and at times lacking in conviction, and seemingly dictated by domestic political priorities rather than military and strategic goals. His overall foreign policy has been an appalling mess, with his flawed strategy of engagement of hostile regimes spectacularly backfiring. And as for the War on Terror, his administration has not even acknowledged it is fighting one.
Can it get any worse for President Obama? Undoubtedly yes. Here are 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in serious trouble, and why its prospects are unlikely to improve between now and the November mid-terms.
1. The Obama presidency is out of touch with the American people
In a previous post I noted how the Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime, extravagant, decaying and out of touch with ordinary Americans. The First Lady’s ill-conceived trip to Spain at a time of widespread economic hardship was symbolic of a White House that barely gives a second thought to public opinion on many issues, and frequently projects a distinctly elitist image. The “let them eat cake” approach didn’t play well over two centuries ago, and it won’t succeed today.
2. Most Americans don’t have confidence in the president’s leadership
This deficit of trust in Obama’s leadership is central to his decline. According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, “nearly six in ten voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country”, and two thirds “say they are disillusioned with or angry about the way the federal government is working.” The poll showed that a staggering 58 per cent of Americans say they do not have confidence in the president’s decision-making, with just 42 per cent saying they do.
3. Obama fails to inspire
In contrast to the soaring rhetoric of his 2004 Convention speech in Boston which succeeded in impressing millions of television viewers at the time, America is no longer inspired by Barack Obama’s flat, monotonous and often dull presidential speeches and statements delivered via teleprompter. From his extraordinarily uninspiring Afghanistan speech at West Point to his flat State of the Union address, President Obama has failed to touch the heart of America. Even Jimmy Carter was more moving.
4. The United States is drowning in debt
The Congressional Budget Office Long-Term Budget Outlook offers a frightening picture of the scale of America’s national debt. Under its alternative fiscal scenario, the CBO projects that US debt could rise to 87 percent of GDP by 2020, 109 percent by 2025, and 185 percent in 2035. While much of Europe, led by Britain and Germany, are aggressively cutting their deficits, the Obama administration is actively growing America’s debt, and has no plan in place to avert a looming Greek-style financial crisis.
5. Obama’s Big Government message is falling flat
The relentless emphasis on bailouts and stimulus spending has done little to spur economic growth or create jobs, but has greatly advanced the power of the federal government in America. This is not an approach that is proving popular with the American public, and even most European governments have long ditched this tax and spend approach to saving their own economies.
6. Obama’s support for socialised health care is a huge political mistake
In an extraordinary act of political Harakiri, President Obama leant his full support to the hugely controversial, unpopular and divisive health care reform bill, with a monstrous price tag of $940 billion, whose repeal is now supported by 55 per cent of likely US voters. As I wrote at the time of its passing, the legislation is “a great leap forward by the United States towards a European-style vision of universal health care, which will only lead to soaring costs, higher taxes, and a surge in red tape for small businesses. This reckless legislation dramatically expands the power of the state over the lives of individuals, and could not be further from the vision of America’s founding fathers.”
7. Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill has been weak-kneed and indecisive
While much of the spilled oil in the Gulf has now been thankfully cleared up, the political damage for the White House will be long-lasting. Instead of showing real leadership on the matter by acing decisively and drawing upon offers of international support, the Obama administration settled on a more convenient strategy of relentlessly bashing an Anglo-American company while largely sitting on its hands. Significantly, a poll of Louisiana voters gave George W. Bush higher marks for his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, with 62 percent disapproving of Obama’s performance on the Gulf oil spill.
8. US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under the Obama administration
It is hard to think of a single foreign policy success for the Obama administration, but there have been plenty of missteps which have weakened American global power as well as the standing of the United States. The surrender to Moscow on Third Site missile defence, the failure to aggressively stand up to Iran’s nuclear programme, the decision to side with ousted Marxists in Honduras, the slap in the face for Great Britain over the Falklands, have all contributed to the image of a US administration completely out of its depth in international affairs. The Obama administration’s high risk strategy of appeasing America’s enemies while kicking traditional US allies has only succeeded in weakening the United States while strengthening her adversaries.
9. President Obama is muddled and confused on national security
From the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to the War on Terror, President Obama’s leadership has often been muddled and confused. On Afghanistan he rightly sent tens of thousands of additional troops to the battlefield. At the same time however he bizarrely announced a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces beginning in July 2011, handing the initiative to the Taliban. On Iraq he has announced an end to combat operations and the withdrawal of all but 50,000 troops despite a recent upsurge in terrorist violence and political instability, and without the Iraqi military and police ready to take over. In addition he has ditched the concept of a War on Terror, replacing it with an Overseas Contingency Operation, hardly the right message to send in the midst of a long-war against Al-Qaeda.
10. Obama doesn’t believe in American greatness
Barack Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism, and has made apologising for his country into an art form. In a speech to the United Nations last September he stated that “no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.” It is difficult to see how a US president who holds these views and does not even accept America’s greatness in history can actually lead the world’s only superpower with force and conviction.
There is a distinctly Titanic-like feel to the Obama presidency and it’s not hard to see why. The most left-wing president in modern American history has tried to force a highly interventionist, government-driven agenda that runs counter to the principles of free enterprise, individual freedom, and limited government that have made the United States the greatest power in the world, and the freest nation on earth.
This, combined with weak leadership both at home and abroad against the backdrop of tremendous economic uncertainty in an increasingly dangerous world, has contributed to a spectacular political collapse for a president once thought to be invincible. America at its core remains a deeply conservative nation, which cherishes its traditions and founding principles. President Obama is increasingly out of step with the American people, by advancing policies that undermine the United States as a global power, while undercutting America’s deep-seated love for freedom.
|
WILL THE BUSH-ERA TAX CUTS BE SAVED?
What might happen if they went away? The debate is gaining volume.
Provided by Joel Jennings & Caroline Jones of Metro Financial Group, LLC
In July, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said that very few taxpayers would be affected if the landmark tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 expired. “I do not believe it will affect growth,” he calmly commented on ABC’s This Week.1 Many legislators and observers on Wall Street and Main Street are far less calm about their potential end.
Why should they end now? The federal government undeniably needs more revenue to help shrink the deficit, and Geithner feels that letting these tax cuts go would not trigger a double-dip recession, as they affect only 2-3% of U.S. taxpayers.1 However, many Republicans and more than a few Democrats see danger here as the richest Americans are also the most influential in job creation.
Deutsche Bank says “don’t do it”. Analysts at the banking titan recently offered their opinion: letting the Bush tax cuts expire would exert a drag of anywhere from 1.1% to 1.5% on U.S. GDP.2 The analysts warn that letting the tax cuts sunset as the federal stimulus winds down could create an economic scenario in the U.S. akin to the one Japan experienced back in the 1990s.
Grassroots momentum gathering. A new website created by the conservative League of American Voters (ReviewTheTaxCuts.com) is gathering signatures in conjunction with a TV ad campaign starring ex-presidential candidate Fred Thompson. This effort comes on the heels of Rasmussen and Gallup polls showing increased concern about taxes. In a mid-July Rasmussen Reports poll, 68% of Americans surveyed said taxes had become a “very important” issue. In April, 63% of Americans surveyed by Gallup felt their taxes would rise in 2011, the largest percentage to respond this way since 1977.3
A battle this fall in Washington. Republicans on Capitol Hill ardently want the tax breaks to remain in place. Democratic leaders in the Senate are striving to introduce a bill in September that would seek to preserve the cuts for the middle class only. Most Democrats seem to favor letting the tax cuts expire for households earning more than $250,000. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is among the voices contending that they didn’t aid the economy much in the first place. Closer to the White House, Secretary Geithner feels that letting the cuts expire would send a message to the world that America is serious about tackling its deficit.3
This is an election year for many members of Congress, and it wouldn’t be surprising if some seats changed hands as a result of the influence of this issue.
More voices. Former Federal Reserve vice-chairman Alan Blinder favors letting the cuts expire. “We couldn't afford them then (and knew it), and we can't afford them now (and know it),” he recently told the Washington Post. “What might be the argument for retaining the tax cuts even though the long-run budget is deeply in the red? That America needs more income inequality? Seems to me we have enough.”4
MoodysEconomy.com chief economist Mark Zandi calls for moderation. Zandi feels the 2001 and 2003 cuts “should be extended permanently for families with annual incomes of less than $250,000 and should be phased out slowly for those making more than that.”4
If the sun sets on these cuts, taxes revert to pre-2001 levels. EGTRRA gave us six tax brackets (10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35%). If EGTRRA went away, so would the 10% tax bracket (the lowest bracket would become 15%) and the 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% rates would be respectively bumped up to 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%. (Households earning more than $379,650 would pay taxes at the 39.6% rate.)5
Then we have capital gains, of course. The ceiling on capital gains tax rates would move back up to 20% if these cuts expired. Additionally, qualified dividends would again be taxed at a taxpayer’s regular rate … which could be as high as 39.6% (see above).5
The death of EGTRRA would also wipe out the child tax credit, restore the “marriage penalty” (married joint filers wouldn’t be able to take 2x the standard deduction allowed for single filers) and bring back the phase-out for the personal exemption and itemized deductions.
There is much to consider. This will, most likely, become one of the hottest issues on Capitol Hill and across the country as we get closer to November.5
Joel Jennings and Caroline Jones are Representatives with Metro Financial Group, LLC and may be reached at www.metrofncgrp.com, 618-524-8100 or jjennings@metrofncgrp.com / cjones@metrofncgrp.com.
Securities offered through J.W. Cole Financial Inc., Member FINRA/SIPC, Advisory services offered through Jonathan Roberts Advisory Group, Inc.
This material was prepared by Peter Montoya Inc., and does not necessarily represent the views of the presenting Representative or the Representative’s Broker/Dealer. This information should not be construed as investment advice. Neither the named Representative nor Broker/Dealer gives tax or legal advice. All information is believed to be from reliable sources; however, we make no representation as to its completeness or accuracy. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional services. If other expert assistance is needed, the reader is advised to engage the services of a competent professional. Please consult your Financial Advisor for further information.. www.petermontoya.com, www.montoyaregistry.com, www.marketinglibrary.net
Citations
1 – nytimes.com/2010/07/26/us/politics/26geithner.html [7/26/10]
2 – cnbc.com/id/38467149 [7/29/10]
3 – blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/07/27/tax-cut-debate-grows-louder/[7/27/10]
4 – washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073004758.html [7/30/10]
5 - forbes.com/2010/07/22/expiring-bush-cuts-affect-personal-finance-taxes.html [7/22/10]
|
Republicans should embrace Paul Ryan's Road Map
By: Fred Barnes Weekly Standard
July 12, 2010
For Republicans, the road map authored by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin is the most important proposal in domestic policy since Ronald Reagan embraced supply-side economics in the 1980 presidential campaign. It's not only the freshest, boldest, and most comprehensive Republican thinking, it's also the most relevant. If Republicans adopt the road map as their basic ideological blueprint, it offers them the prospect of a landslide in the midterm election this year, followed by victory in the presidential election in 2012.
For sure, that's a lot of weight for a policy statement drafted by a 40-year-old House member to bear. But the road map is perfectly timed to deal with the crises of the moment: economic stagnation, uncontrolled spending, the deficit and long-term debt, soaring tax rates, health care, the housing problem, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.
Yet Republican leaders are wary of endorsing it, and for understandable reasons. The road map is sweeping and politically risky. It would overhaul popular programs like Medicare, relying on individuals to make decisions now made by government. Democrats are already attacking it. When Ryan delivered the weekly Republican radio address in late June, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put out a press release under the heading, "Republicans Make Key Advocate of Privatizing Social Security and Ending Medicare Their Spokesman on Budget."
Republican leaders fear the road map might jeopardize, or at least minimize, what is expected to be a decisive Republican victory in the November midterm election. Their advantage in the congressional generic poll is at an all-time high, and President Obama's approval rating has dropped to the mid-40s. Why give Democrats a target to shoot at?
There are three reasons Republicans should ignore their jitters about the road map. The first is that the nation's disenchantment with Obama and Democrats will take Republicans only so far. There's a residue of bad feelings toward Republicans from the years the party ruled Congress, spent too much, and produced scandals.
Voters have memories. To overcome their qualms, Republicans need to provide more than a litany of Democratic faults. Voters are looking for a serious solution to the mess we're in.
The second reason should be obvious after the ignominious Republican defeat in May in the race for John Murtha's old House seat in Pennsylvania. Democrat Mark Critz won by running to the right -- against Washington, Obama, spending, the deficit -- and Democratic candidates across the country are taking the same tack.
Republican candidates need to put some daylight between themselves and their Democratic opponents. The road map will stamp Republican candidates as the real conservatives, which is what voters happen to be looking for in 2010.
The third reason is the Republican message (or the absence of one). In Pennsylvania, it was "send a message to Nancy Pelosi." Voters declined. The road map is a message. The country is falling apart, we're going broke, government is on a takeover binge, the economy is wobbling. The road map is the solution. That's a pretty good message.
For now, the road map has a relatively small but growing cheering section. A dozen House members have endorsed it. Sen. Jim DeMint praised it in his book "Saving Freedom." Jeb Bush likes it. On CNN last week, economic historian Niall Ferguson called Ryan "a serious thinker on the Republican right who's prepared to grapple with these issues of fiscal sustainability and come up with a plan."
The plan would give everyone a refundable tax credit to buy health insurance, allow individual investment accounts to be carved out of Social Security, reduce the six income tax rates to two (10 and 25 percent), and replace the corporate tax (35 percent) with a business consumption tax (8.5 percent). And that's not the half of it.
As ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, Ryan was able to get the Congressional Budget Office to run the numbers in his plan. CBO concluded the plan would "make the Social Security and Medicare programs permanently solvent [and] lift the growing debt burden on future generations, and hold federal taxes to no higher than 19 percent of GDP." Pretty impressive results, I'd say.
The road map does one more thing. It would give Republicans an agenda if they gain control of the House or Senate in the midterm election -- or a mandate if they win both. "What's the point of winning an election if you don't have a mandate?" Ryan asks.
He doesn't expect a mandate in 2010. "I need to make sure these ideas survive this election," he says, and set the stage for "the most ideological, sea-changing election in our lifetime" in 2012. Merely survive in 2010? The road map can do better than that. How about thrive?
Fred Barnes is executive editor of the Weekly Standard, from which this is adapted.
|
TAXING THE RICH to pay FOR HEALTH CARE
That’s part of the plan. How will you be affected?
[Provided by Joel Jennings & Caroline Jones of Metro Financial Group, LLC]
In 2013, wealthy Americans will pay extra Medicare taxes. Congress, President Obama and the IRS are putting a surcharge on the wealthy to help fund the health care reforms.
- Beginning in 2013, joint filers with adjusted gross incomes of $250,000 or greater and single filers with AGI of $200,000 or greater will have to pay 0.9% extra in FICA taxes (that is, Social Security and Medicare taxes). The employers of these taxpayers face no such increase.1
- Also, joint filers with modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) of $250,000 or more and single filers with MAGI of $200,000 or more will be docked with a 3.8% tax on investment income. (Even estates and trusts will be subject to this new 3.8% levy.)1
What might the dollar impact be? The Tax Foundation, a politically conservative watchdog organization, thinks that the richest 1% of American families will pay an average of $52,000 more in federal taxes by 2016.2
What are the chances of these tax hikes being repealed? Think slim and none. Basically, you’d have to repeal the health care reforms to make it happen.
How can you avoid the 3.8% tax on dividends, capital gains & interest? It won’t be easy. Real estate investors may luck out the most, because federal law characterizes rental income as “active” rather than “passive”. On the other hand, if you sell a home you’ve owned for decades and see a taxable gain above the home sale exclusion ($250,000 single, $500,000 married), you’ll face the 3.8% tax.1
Some forms of unearned income won’t be slapped with the tax. IRA distributions and income distributions from 401(a), 403(b) and 457(b) plans will be exempt. The same goes for pension income and Social Security income. Annuities that are part of a pension plan will be exempt. Any income from a business that you participate in won’t be hit with the 3.8% tax. Veterans’ benefits, life insurance payouts and interest earned by municipal bonds will also be spared.1,3
As a result of this tax, you might start to see subtle shifts in financial strategy. You might see more muni bond purchases, more interest in life insurance, and more installment sales. As qualified Roth IRA distributions don’t boost AGI, you might be looking at another factor promoting Roth IRA conversions.3 Everybody will think about taking some capital gains prior to 2013.
The richest Americans have paid less tax in recent decades. Wealth for the Common Good (a liberal non-profit looking at this matter) notes that in 1955, the 400 largest incomes in America paid 51.2% of those incomes back in federal taxes. That led to the “tax shelters” of the 1960s and 1970s. In comparison, the top 400 incomes in America in 2007 paid out only an average of 16.6% in federal taxes.2
So how can you reduce your taxes in 2013? It is not too early to think about it. You might want to devote a planning session to this topic, or start to read up on your options.
Securities offered through J.W. Cole Financial Inc., Member FINRA/SIPC, Advisory services offered through Jonathan Roberts Advisory Group, Inc.
This material was prepared by Peter Montoya Inc., and does not necessarily represent the views of the presenting Representative or the Representative’s Broker/Dealer. This information should not be construed as investment advice. Neither the named Representative nor Broker/Dealer gives tax or legal advice. All information is believed to be from reliable sources; however, we make no representation as to its completeness or accuracy. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional services. If other expert assistance is needed, the reader is advised to engage the services of a competent professional. Please consult your Financial Advisor for further information.. www.petermontoya.com, www.montoyaregistry.com, www.marketinglibrary.net
Citations
1 – online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703890904575297351898565426.html [6/12/10]
2 - csmonitor.com/Commentary/David-R.-Francis/2010/0503/Wealthy-Americans-shoulder-health-care-tax-burden [5/3/10]
3 - projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_healthlaw27_05-27-10_86IIRQ8_v11.8fa6649.html [5/27/10]
4 - irs.gov/publications/p590/ch02.html#en_US_publink1000231071 [2009]
|
A HEALTH CARE HORROR STORY FROM CANADA
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on June 7, 2010
There are howls of outrage coming from the liberal community in Alberta, Canada. It seems that some doctors, desperate to protect their patients from the overcrowded and failing socialized medical system in their country, have set up private clinics to treat them. To circumvent Canadian laws, which prohibit charging for medical care, they have set up private, membership clinics where, for $2,000 a year, patients can access well staffed and equipped clinics and avoid the long waits and compromised care of the public system.
The leading Canadian newspaper, the Globe and Mail, reports that "critics say that the clinics are taking physicians away from the public system making it even harder...to find a family doctor." David Eggen, executive director of a group that supports the Canadian socialized system, Friends of Medicare, said that it's already hard to find a family physician in Canada and that clinics like these, springing up in several Canadian cities, could make it even harder.
It does not seem to have occurred to defenders of socialized medicine that the system itself is causing the doctor shortage. Cuts in medical fees, overcrowding of facilities, shortages of equipment and space, and bureaucratic oversight have all combined to drive men and women out of family medical practice. Now, with a critical shortage looming, those who can afford to pay for adequate care are opting out of the public system and, literally, taking their lives into their own hands.
But it is illegal to make patients "have to pay a fee to gain access to health services" that are provided free by the government system. So patients and doctors are forming membership-only groups to avoid the legal penalties that could potential stop them from getting or giving the care that they need.
This is where the United States is headed. Socialism dries up the supply of medical care and forces ever stricter rationing of the available resources. As Margaret Thatcher famously said, "Eventually socialism runs out of other peoples' money."
With the full implementation of Obamacare and its likely cuts in physician reimbursement, more and more doctors will choose to opt out of Medicare and charge their patients for their care. The elderly who need specialized care will have no choice but to take out insurance, not to fill gaps in Medicare coverage, but to overlay the system with private coverage so they can get the care Medicare now provides to all seniors. If you want to see a family doctor, it will be rough unless you are paying for the care privately. And to see a specialist, at the low reimbursement rates afforded by the program in the future, will be well nigh impossible.
Medical care for the elderly will become like public housing or public education in the inner city. Those who can afford to go elsewhere will. Those who can't will be left to fend for themselves in overcrowded public facilities that will be, at least, free.
And then, as in Canada, liberal critics will rail, not against the system that dried up the resources in the first place or against the socialist rules that drove doctors out of medicine, but against the private clinics for resources from the public sector.
By plunging our excellent medical care system into this new world of regulation, fee cuts, and care rationing, the U.S. is going down the disastrous road Canada has taken.
Unless we can elect a Republican majority in November and a GOP president in 2012, this is our future.
|
|
|