Posts Tagged ‘obama’

Senator Orrin Hatch went to the Senate floor to express his disappointment in President Obama for politicizing his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast yesterday.

Here is how The Hill reports it:

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) on Thursday evening said President Obama needs a reminder that he is not Jesus Christ.

“In 2008, the president declared that his nomination was the world historical moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal,” Hatch said in a speech from the Senate floor. 

“Someone needs to remind the president that there was only one person who walked on water and he did not occupy the Oval Office.”

Hatch skewered the president for a remark he made at the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday morning, during which he suggested Jesus might support his plan to raise taxes on wealthy Americans.

“For me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto to whom much is given, much shall be required,’” Obama said at the breakfast.

Hatch, who is a devout Mormon, suggested Obama was trying to “assume the role of theologian in chief” and said he ought to stick to public policy.

“[Obama] suggested to the attendees that Jesus would have supported his latest tax-the-rich schemes,” Hatch said. “With due respect to the president, he ought to stick to public policy. I think most Americans would agree that the gospels are concerned with weightier matters than effective tax rates.”

You can see Hatch’s on C-SPAN here.

Conn Carroll at Washington Examiner has a very interesting piece based on this study by Gallup.  It shows that if the election were held now, and correlated with Obama’s approval/disapproval rating, the Republican candidate would get a whopping 323 Electoral College votes.

Oh, that it were that simple.  However, approval ratings this far out from Election Day are far from good indicators of what will happen after the President starts campaigning in earnest and Mitt Romney officially secures the nomination and becomes a punching bag of the left.

The good news – Obama’s folks can’t be very happy about where he stands with the American people – and it’s evident that his State of the Union hasn’t done much to give him a bump in the numbers.  Mr. President, they’re just not that into you.

Romney’s solid win in Florida effectively ends the GOP nomination.  Romney is firmly in the driver’s seat, and while Ron Paul will continue to collect delegates for the next month or so, Gingrich and Santorum are essentially done.

The next two big primaries are Michigan and Arizona, both of which Romney will win in a big way, giving him the “big Mo” going into Super Tuesday.

It’s time for Republicans to coalesce behind Romney and focus on beating President Obama in November.

Words don’t matter here.

Obama visits the Phoenix area today, and according to this report, thousands of workers involved in the expansion of the Intel facility the President is visiting are taking a forced, non-paid day off.

This was an interesting part of the story:

But some workers — who put in six, ten-hour days every week — disagree. Several expressed their frustration over losing out on 20 percent of their paycheck.

“[The president] is here to talk about jobs and the economy and yet he’s forcing middle-class people right out of work for a day,” said a worker who contacted KTAR. “We’re losing an overtime day. It hurts.”

Consider that, President Obama… it hurts.

Obama told some real whoppers in is State of the Union address. Here are just a few:

This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy – a strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.

C’mon, do you really expect us to believe that you support an “all of the above” strategy less than a week after you strike down the Keystone pipeline?  Get serious.

On clean energy – in particular, Solyndra, he said this:

Some technologies don’t pan out; some companies fail. But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy. I will not walk away from workers like Bryan. I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here. We have subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough. It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits and create these jobs.

Really?  There are already more tax credits for “clean” energy than any other form of energy.  To ask Congress to pass MORE tax credits and incentives – while billions of tax-payer dollars have been wasted, is irresponsible.

Speaking of taxes:

Right now, we’re poised to spend nearly $1 trillion more on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

First off, does he really argue that the government SPENDS money on tax breaks? That is a typical Democrat talking point, as if it’s THEIR money to begin with. Secondly, Obama is purposely trying to confuse the American people by not acknowledging the difference between “earned” income and “unearned” income.  Warren Buffet doesn’t take a salary – so he doesn’t have “earned” income.  He has enough wealth that he can live on his investments and interest.  Those are called capital gains.  The capital gains tax rate is 15%, for good reason – because it is capital gains that fund new businesses, which in turn grow the economy.  If Obama actually doubles the tax rate on capital gains, economic growth will grind to a halt.  This is a cynical attempt to engage in class warfare, while trying to claim that it isn’t class warfare.

Obama continues:

But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of Members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes. Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. And my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right: Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires. In fact, if you’re earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn’t get special tax subsidies or deductions. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn’t go up. You’re the ones struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages. You’re the ones who need relief.

Notice his crafty addition of the word “earning” when he is talking about people who are millionaires?  He knows, as well as anyone, that people who are “earning” millions are paying a much higher rate than the 15% of unearned income. They don’t get special subsidies or deductions – it just may be that their deductions are higher because they give more to charity, etc.

Obama continues again:

Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.

They only call that common sense when you confuse earned income with unearned income.

And here is the biggest whopper of the night:

We don’t begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it’s not because they envy the rich. It’s because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don’t need and the country can’t afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference – like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet. That’s not right.

What’s not right, Mr. President, is for you to demagogue taxes in a way that is cynical and anti-productivity.

It’s sad that the President of the United States cannot be honest with the American people.

Everyone knows that State of the Union speeches are mostly for show.  Still, the news that Warren Buffet’s secretary is going to be Michelle Obama’s guest in the First Lady’s box takes this speech from ridiculous to absurd.

Typically, the guest of the First Lady is a hero of some sort.  Nancy Reagan was the first First Lady to have guests at the State of the Union.  Her first State of the Union guest, in 1982, was Lenny Skutnik, a Congressional Budget Office employee who had jumped into the icy waters of the Potomac River to help rescue survivors after Air Florida Flight 90 crashed into the Potomac River in 1982.

Reagan said Skutnik demonstrated “the spirit of American heroism at its finest.”  He then said, “We saw the heroism of one of our young government employees, Lenny Skutnik, who, when he saw a woman lose her grip on the helicopter line, dived into the water and dragged her to safety.”

Other guests have included: Alma Powell and Brenda Schwarzkopf, the wives of Gens. Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf, who were leading military operations in Iraq; Richard Dean, a Social Security Administration employee, who helped rescue victims of the Oklahoma City bombing; flight attendants Christina Jones and Hermis Moutardier who helped thwart an attempted bombing by Richard Reid, the so-called “Shoe Bomber.”

The other guest tonight with Michelle Obama is Mark Kelly, husband of Gabby Giffords.  It is pathetic that someone who has demonstrated incredible courage and persistence in helping with the recovery of Giffords is sharing space with Warren Buffet’s secretary, who is merely a prop for more arguments for class warfare.

Warren Buffet pays a lower rate than his secretary because he does not have any “earned” income.  All of his income comes from his investments so it is passive income – or capital gains – and taxed at the 15% rate.

This is why Mitt Romney pays the same rate.  He doesn’t have earned income – it’s all investment income.

So we’ll get to see Obama demagogue wealth creators tonight, using a (well-paid) secretary as a prop.

In response to a question by Chris Wallace, Mitt Romney announced on Fox News Sunday that he would release his 2010 tax returns and his 2011 estimated tax return on Tuesday.

Romney cited the reason as being that the issue had become a distraction.  I believe him, but releasing them so quickly after the South Carolina primary made me realize that an email I got from a friend last week was dead on.

So I have this theory on Romney’s tax returns that I think explains why he has gotten flustered on camera over releasing them and why he’s hesitant to release them.  I don’t think it’s the class envy thing at all—or he wouldn’t have bothered to run in the first place.

Romney doesn’t want to release his tax returns now because of the primary in South Carolina.  I think if he released his tax returns now it would show he’s donated millions of dollars to the Mormon Church—possibly far more than 10%– and seeing those numbers in black and white will rile up the Evangelicals and others fearful of Mormon influence.

Further, I think that is exactly, and the only, reason Newt Gingrich is sounding like Obama’s spawn in demanding Romney release them.

I agree with him.  And Chris Wallace asked Romney if his tax returns showing millions to the LDS Church was going to create a problem.  Romney had a great response in which he said that he hoped not, because he believes in the biblical call to tithe (give 10 percent) and he made a promise to give 10 percent.  Romney went on to say that if he hadn’t given 10 percent, then people could have a problem with him.

I can’t wait to see the percentage of charitable contributions by each candidate.  I predict Romney will have given more than any one else by a huge factor – and it is more than what the Obama’s give.

I am officially on the Mitt Romney for President bandwagon. For the first time since Ronald Reagan, we have a candidate who is explicitly campaigning on the principles of free enterprise and economic freedom, something that has been sorely missing from Republican leadership since Reagan left the White House.

At the end of the day, our nation’s greatness is made possible by the freedoms that we are guaranteed by our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. For someone like Newt Gingrich to criticize Mitt Romney for engaging in free enterprise is not only weak, but morally bankrupt; he should be ashamed.

For the sake of our great nation, I hope and pray that Gingrich flames out soon – if he is our nominee, when it comes to the fundamentals of our foundational freedoms, how is he different than Barack Obama?

One thing for sure, this isn’t over by a long shot.