First ATM's, now Aviation

It appears Obama's newest solution to address America's debt is by fanning the fames of class warfare and attacking corporate jet tax breaks.

(Never mind that Obama actually approved these tax breaks in the 2009 Stimulus Bill. And no, there was no mention by Obama of cutting funds to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security which account for 40% of federal spending)

Well the numbers are in, are getting rid of this tax break would save $3 billion over 10 years, which is 1/10th of 1 percent of Obama's budget.

Everyday the US government spends $3.5 billion dollars.

Enforcing this tax wouldn't even raise enough money in 10 years to fund the federal government for one day.

Again, does the US have a tax problem, or does it have a spending problem?

Wisconsin Budget Changes Already Improving Schools

From JSonline

Cost savings from worker contributions to health care and retirement, taking effect today as part of the new collective bargaining laws, will swing the Kaukauna School District from a $400,000 budget deficit to an estimated $1.5 million surplus, the Post-Crescent in Appleton reports.  The district tells the Post-Crescent that it plans to hire teachers and reduce class size.

So let me get this straight, asking teachers to contribute more to their health insurance and retirements didn't crash the education system?

Excerpt from Peter Wehner at Commentary:

Indeed, it dawned on me then that for some on the left — not all, but for some — the expressions of concern for the suffering and oppressed was an affectation; what mattered to them was ideology, not justice and human dignity. And if great numbers of innocent people had to die in order to defend The Cause, that was the unfortunate collateral damage that needed to be buried along with the bodies. Liberalism, after all, was too important to be harmed by the stain of genocide, even if genocide was the unwitting result of its policies. We have seen some version of this play out many times since the wars in Southeast Asia, including in Iraq and now Afghanistan. Withdrawal and surrender are endorsed without seemingly a moment’s thought to the wholesale slaughter that might follow.

Libya Update

The House has passed a bill to reject authorizing the continuation of direct military action in Libya, but still leaves open a line of funding for the mission.

Several thoughts:

1)      National Security should not be used to score cheap political shots (Cough Republicans Cough)

2)      Obama has done a poor job explaining to the public why we should stay and continue to fight

3)      Obama needed to devout more resources so we can beat, not engage, Qaddafi’s regime.

4)      Fighting a half-hearted war will only embolden Qaddafi

I understand that there is no easy answer, because their are so many unknowns, such as who will replace Qaddafi if he is effectively removed and whether Libya will be worse or better off without him. But it's sad when we begin something and partisanship gets in the way of things that are really important, like our ability to protect the citizens and protestors in Libya who are being massacred in their fight for freedom.

Politico Reports on Obama's Afghanistan Speech

With the headline:

Obama's Afghanistan speech reveals war that no longer seems so smart"

Hmm, this wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that 2012 is quickly approaching and B has pissed off his anti-war base for the past 2 1/2 years by continuing all of the previous administration's war policies?

Nah, must be another one of my conspiracy theories.

Let's see what else we have.

But that just cause, in Obama’s view, is no longer reason enough for what had essentially become an open-ended U.S. commitment. So the president has opted for a faster-than-expected withdrawal timetable against the advice of senior military advisers, including Gen. David Petraeus.

Alright, so B, who knows as much about military strategy as I know about brain surgery, is going against the advice of senior military advisors.  Got it.

"These long wars must come to a responsible end [and] we must learn from their lessons,” said Obama

Responsible, in this sense, meaning going against the General in charge of the operation and allowing the Taliban to regain control of the country and once again become a breeding ground for terrorists by pulling out early to appease the far left. Oh and spreading our fighting forces thin, thus further endangering those who stay. Yes, "responsible".

“We must embrace America’s singular role in the course of human events but we must also be as pragmatic as we are passionate, as strategic as we are resolute. When threatened we must respond with force – but when that force can be targeted, we need not deploy large armies overseas.”

Remind me again how the whole Libya thing is going? And that's the tactic Obama wants to use in Afghanistan?

My War Against Obama's War Against HSA's

Via Big Government.

To be clear, I don’t have a Health Savings Account. But I want one. Really freaking bad. The key is finding a job that offers me this option.

The main reason I want one is because I am a low-use user, which is whom HSA ‘s are good for, and if I don’t use up all the money in any given year, it just rolls over to the next year, thus allowing me to save up in case some huge unexpected medical expense ever comes up. Awesome right?

Apparently, Obamacare will make HSA ‘s much more difficult to use, first by capping the amount of non-taxable income you can contribute per year to $2,500, and second by requiring 15,000 over the counter drugs (like Tylenol) to have a signed doctor’s note in order for it to be paid off using HSA funds. And in case you don’t have your doctor’s note? 20% tax sucka.

Read the full article here.

So now, I am officially starting my own counter war to Obama's war on HSA's.

(At this point in time, not really sure what my war will consist of outside of some highly critical blog posts, but it's a start)

3 Parts Gloom, 1 Part Optimism

LA Times Reports 

Twenty-five months into what was supposed to be the economic recovery of the Obama-Biden administration, the poll finds a whopping 66% of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. They no longer buy the oft-used inherited-big-economic-hole line.

…

Despite all the Joe Biden promises, only 23% of Americans say they see any signs of economic recovery. Only one-in-ten expects employment to recover within two years.

That’s one out of every four people. One out of four!

What industries are they in?

Are they those people who wake up in the morning and don’t need coffee?

Are they completely isolated from the recession?

Is the glass always half full to them?

Do they read the newspapers? Watch the news?

Do they all live in Texas?

Does anyone else ever wonder in this poll who the 23% of people are who see signs of economic recovery?

Hunstman Announces, I Cringe

The one line that stopped me in my tracks in the Washington Post article about his announcement  was this:

That Huntsman supported policies like civil unions and cap and trade that mark him as a moderate (by the left).

Really? Supporting one of the most massive power and money grabs EVER through Cap and Trade  by the US government makes one a “moderate” in the eyes of the left?

No that’s not some kind of racist joke.

Via Walter Meade:

When it come to excellence in education, red states rule — at least according to a panel of experts assembled by Tina Brown’s Newsweek. Using a set of indicators ranging from graduation rate to college admissions and SAT scores, the panel reviewed data from high schools all over the country to find the best public schools in the country.

The results make depressing reading for the teacher unions: the very best public high schools in the country are heavily concentrated in red states.

Oregon, take note.

Full article here.

Bad Bad ATM

The latest comment from President Obama showing his complete lack of understanding of the economy, using ATMs and Kiosks at the airport are ridding our culture of human labor.

Well, the ATM industry was having none of that.

‘President Obama should never use ATMs as an example of how technology replaces human labor because ATMs today play a critical role in providing extensive employment in the ATM and cash-in-transit industries. In addition, ATMs provide an indispensible range of services to customers, including all-hours access to their own banked cash. With over 400,000 in America alone, ATMs have become the main distribution channel for the distribution of cash in all modern economies and cash remains by far the most popular form of payment by US consumers. The whole purpose of the invention of the ATM back in 1967 was to make cash available outside of bank hours, liberating citizens to access their banked money 24 x 7, a huge increase in convenience.  Given these major roles of the ATM, it would be quite irrational to turn the clock back to the 1960s to a time before ATMs.

Let’s follow Obama’s logic a little further.

Industrial Revolution? Complete waste. All those stupid machines took over jobs people could previously do by hand. So what if doing it by hand is more expensive and takes 400 times as long.

What about farming equipment? Those farmers want to keep all the money to themselves with expensive and fancy machines instead of hiring out labor.  

Vaccuums, dishwashers, and laundry machines? Those all cut out the need to hire a maid. Those housewives, saving money with newer technologies instead of hiring someone to do their chores. Bring back the good old days of full house staffs, that's what I say. 

And obviously, it doesn’t matter that entire industries are created to build and maintain these machines, which provide jobs for many people. Not only that, machine and new technologies make goods cheaper. Could you imagine how expensive food would be if it had to be farmed only by workers with none of the advanced machinery available today? Food prices would sky rocket and production would plummet. Not only that, a work force would have to be found to do these jobs. How many recent college graduates who are $20,000 in debt would want to go work on a farm cutting down wheat or corn? At least those unemployment rates would be down.  

If You Scratch My Back, I'll Scratch Yours

Politico Reports:

It’s the rule of reciprocity. If someone helps you, you help them. It's basic, it's simple, it's human nature. I get that. And it’s Obama’s Administration, he can hire and fire as he chooses, I get that too.

More than two years after Obama took office vowing to banish “special interests” from his administration, nearly 200 of his biggest donors have landed plum government jobs and advisory posts, won federal contracts worth millions of dollars for their business interests or attended numerous elite White House meetings and social events, an investigation by iWatch News has found.

But don’t mislead the public during your campaign with all this “post-partisan” nonsense when in fact, you have no intention of being remotely post partisan, especially in your hiring practices.

Overall, 184 of 556, or about one-third of Obama bundlers or their spouses joined the administration in some role. But the percentages are much higher for the big-dollar bundlers. Nearly 80 percent of those who collected more than $500,000 for Obama took “key administration posts,” as defined by the White House. More than half the 24 ambassador nominees who were bundlers raised $500,000.

The big bundlers had broad access to the White House for meetings with top administration officials and glitzy social events. In all, campaign bundlers and their family members account for more than 3,000 White House meetings and visits. Half of them raised $200,000 or more.

Why can’t he just say, “Ya, I hired a lot of people who fundraised for me”?

Own it B, own it.

(Am I the only person that thinks these government jobs must not be too difficult to perform since the only prerequisite is the ability to fundraise? Anyone? Anyone?)