With summer drawing to a close and most people having already taken or planned their vacations for this summer, this latest lame attempt by Obama to give the illusion he actually cares about the US Gulf coast, the people, and their businesses falls flat.  After taking serious heat in July for a vacation to Maine and Michelle’s lavish vacation to Spain, this 27-hour quickie (no worries, The One will take a real 10-day vacation to Martha’s Vineyard next week) will be seen for what it is by America–a token drive by.

If Obama truly wanted to help the Gulf residents and the tourism industry, then he would have planned his weekend getaway at the Gulf instead of Maine and people would have had a month and a half to plan a trip there.  With schools already in session in some districts and most others starting at August’s end, families are gearing up for back to school at this point.  The Gulf states could have benefited greatly the same way Maine saw a boost to its economy.

(more…)

From Bloomberg:

Whitney Gollinger, marketing chief for a Manhattan condo building with an outdoor movie theater and panoramic city views, is highlighting a different amenity to spur sales: the financial backing of the federal government.

The Federal Housing Administration agreed in March to insure mortgages for apartments at the 98-unit Gramercy Park development, known as Tempo. That enables buyers to make a down payment of as little as 3.5 percent in a building where apartments are listed at $820,000 to $3 million.

(more…)

Washington’s latest bailout of bleeding state governments, $26 billion worth, has gotten attention because, among other things, almost half the bailout is financed by cutting $12 billion from food stamps.

But isn’t food stamps a signature program for the liberal Democrats who passed this spending bill? Isn’t government money for the poor what Democrats are supposed to be about?

How, in these tough times, do Democrats who control congress decide who’ll get funded and who not?

This is the latest example, particularly illustrative, showing that Washington is less and less about ideas and values, and more and more about interests, power, and money.

In this case, we’re talking about unions. Of the $26 billion the bill appropriates, $16 billion goes to state Medicaid programs and the other $10 billion to unionized state and local government employees.

Of the top twenty PACs in the country, eleven are union PACs. Number eight on the list is the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Workers ($1.8 million dollars in campaign contributions in the current election cycle). Number seventeen on the list is the American Federation of Teachers ($1.5 million in contributions).

Needless to say, around 100% of these union political contributions go to Democrats.

(more…)

Today, in 1945, Americans were greeted with a two-word newsflash, “Japan Surrenders” World War II was over. (Note: It was August 15th in Japan, but, because of time zone differences, it was August 14th in the US. Consider this VJ Day Weekend.)

In a little remarked upon move earlier this month, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) put forward a legislative proposal to raise taxes on energy companies by stripping them of the ability to claim a key tax deduction.

Known as Section 199 relief, the deduction in question has been available to companies engaged in energy production, as well as manufacturing, for several years as an incentive to encourage operations and employment.

However, under an amendment introduced by Baucus, which could be voted on in the Senate next month, that deduction would be eliminated for certain players in the energy industry.

According to a memo obtained by Capitol Confidential and written by Senate Finance Committee staffers Scott Mulhauser and Erin Shields, the Baucus amendment is intended as a substitute to another introduced by Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.).  The Johanns amendment is itself intended to modify the Small Business Jobs Act.

The memo states that “the Democratic alternative… would repeal Section 199 of the tax code, which currently allows these corporations to deduct six percent of their income from oil and gas production from their tax liability, effective December 31, 2010.”

(more…)

Click to Play

With Peter Robinson hiking in the Sierras (that’s not a euphemism, he actually is hiking in the Sierras), Jonah Goldberg sits in and perhaps needless to say, adult supervision is in short supply. Hence, we cover Star Trek (of course), gay bars and the GZM, the use of fake swear words in popular culture (Johnny Dangerously, anyone?), and the time Rob spotted former Labor Secretary Robert Reich in a hot tub. Really. Not to worry though, there’s plenty of serious discussion (tenure and taxes, primary election analysis, and of course, conservatives and pop culture) to go around.

For more info and links from this week’s show or to comment, join the conversation at Ricochet.com. Subscribe to the podcast here.

It’s truly fascinating, and not the least bit ironic, when union bosses treat their own workers as bad or worse than the employers they attack.

As union bosses clamor for enactment of so-called “card check,” (otherwise known as Employee Free Choice Act), it seems that when confronted with union issues among their own employees, they act every bit as barbaric as the robber barons of yore.

In a move of stunning hypocrisy, the United Federation of Teachers axed one of its longtime employees — for trying to unionize the powerful labor organization’s own workers, it was charged yesterday.

Jim Callaghan, a veteran writer for the teachers union, told The Post he was booted from his $100,000-a-year job just two months after he informed UFT President Michael Mulgrew that he was trying to unionize some of his co-workers.

“I was fired for trying to start a union at the UFT,” said a dumbfounded Callaghan, who worked for the union’s newsletter and as a speechwriter for union leaders for the past 13 years.

[snip]

Callaghan said that yesterday morning, he was hauled into a meeting with UFT officials, including CFO David Hickey, and told only that he was being fired from his job and had a half-hour to clear out of the office.

“They gave me no reason, no letter, no cause at all,” said Callaghan, who insisted that he has received no reprimands or notices about problems with his work. He noted that he wrote six stories in the most recent newsletter for teachers.

Callaghan said the union-busting bullying continued after he was told he was fired, when UFT leaders called in a detail of six uniformed cops to remove him from his office because he wasn’t leaving fast enough.

Callaghan said he decided to unionize the 12 UFT writers after a colleague was fired last year without cause.

“We have no protections and no disciplinary process,” he said.

While the UFT is an example of the hypocrisy that permeates the union movement, it is only one case out of many over the years.

(more…)

A former Heritage Foundation colleague has returned to youtube.com with a video asking taxpayers whether examples of government waste are true or false.

The video is very well done, but I feel compelled to make one additional observation. Pork-barrel spending is outrageous, and examples of government waste are useful to educate voters about profligacy in Washington, but all government spending has negative effects on the economy.

Regardless of whether it is a corrupt earmark or a squeaky-clean appropriation, all spending must be financed by taxes, debt, or printing money – and all these options are bad for economic performance. Here’s a video that gives the theoretical explanation of why govenrment spending harms economic performance, and here’s a follow-up video providing empirical evidence about the damaging impact of too much government.

By the way, Michelle’s first video also used the man-on-the-street theme, asking people during the stimulus debate whether they would rather keep more of their income instead of having politicians increase the burden of government spending. It’s also worth watching and contemplating how much better off we would be if the politicians had listened to her message.

(more…)

On July 27, 2010 the Senate failed to advance the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act (“DISCLOSE Act”).  The leaders of the Democratic Party including Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senator Chuck Schumer, and President Barack Obama crafted the legislation to silence speakers whose rights were restored by the Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. FEC.

While Congressional leaders spent six months reacting to the Citizens United decision our economy continued to teeter on the brink.  The liberal elites focused their energies on the DISCLOSE Act rather than focusing on meaningful fiscal policy to help strengthen our economy.

Reid and Schumer had planned to pass the DISCLOSE Act by the Fourth of July so that they could regulate and silence political speakers in the November elections.  Once this was no longer a viable option, I assumed they would return to the business of promoting economic growth, saving jobs, and preventing massive tax increases from stifling our economy.

Unfortunately they haven’t gotten the message.  Instead of addressing the issues most concerning the American public Senator Schumer has vowed to “go back at this bill again and again and again until we pass it.”  Senator Schumer isn’t the only one still fixated on Citizens United.

Having chastised the Supreme Court during the State of the Union for their decision, as well as praising Elena Kagan for her work arguing Citizens United, President Obama has committed himself to the fight against free speech.  Just this week, President Obama again sought to demagogue the issue during a fundraising event:

(more…)

Today, in 1980, Lech Walesa led strikes at the Gdansk shipyards. It was the beginning of freedom in Eastern Europe. We may need to find our own Lech…

WASHINGTON (AP) – President Barack Obama on Friday forcefully endorsed building a mosque near ground zero, saying the country’s founding principles demanded no less.

“As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country,” Obama said, weighing in for the first time on a controversy that has riven New York and the nation.

“That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances,” he said. “This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.”

Obama made the comments at an annual dinner in the White House State Dining Room celebrating the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

The White House had not previously taken a stand on the mosque, which would be part of a $100 million Islamic center to be built in lower Manhattan two blocks from where nearly 3,000 people perished when hijacked jetliners slammed into the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001. Press secretary Robert Gibbs had insisted it was a local matter. (more…)

From the UK’s Daily Telegraph:

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. (more…)

In this week’s edition of Coffee and Markets, featuring The New Ledger’s Francis Cianfrocca, we’re talking about the latest Federal Reserve activity, the kerfuffle between Paul Krugman and Paul Ryan, and Barack Obama’s bashing exercise against Americans for Prosperity. We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment.com and Stephen Clouse and Associates.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

You can subscribe to the podcast by following the links above, and if you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

TNL: America’s Two Tier Economy
Capretta: Krugman’s Flim Flam Assault
McArdle: Why Krugman is Wrong on Ryan
Reason: Greedy Capitalist Refuses to Hire
TNL: Tea Parties and the Professional Left

From the Associated Press:

A federal appeals court on Friday threw out a decision that had barred Congress from withholding funds from ACORN, the activist group driven to ruin by scandal and financial woes.

The ruling by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan reversed a decision by a district court judge in Brooklyn that found Congress had violated the group’s rights by punishing it without a trial.

Congress cut off ACORN’s federal funding last year in response to allegations the group engaged in voter registration fraud and embezzlement and violated the tax-exempt status of some of its affiliates by engaging in partisan political activities.

(more…)

To close out 2009, the Democrats, who supposedly care so much about ‘the children,’ gave the DC children a special gift–they killed the successful voucher program–effectively banishing them back to horrid DC public schools.  As I reported on New Year’s Eve 2009:

The Democrats have officially killed a successful private school voucher program banishing more than 3,300 low-income children back to the DC schools they so desperately wanted to escape. The Heartland Institute reports:

The leaders of D.C.’s school choice movement, Kevin P. Chavous (former D.C. Councilman) and Virginia Walden Ford (executive director of D.C. Parents for School Choice), today issued the following statement:

“House and Senate Appropriators this week ignored the wishes of D.C.’s mayor, D.C.’s public schools chancellor, a majority of D.C.’s city council, and more than 70 percent of D.C. residents and have mandated the slow death of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. This successful school voucher program—for D.C.’s poorest families—has allowed more than 3,300 children to attend the best schools they have ever known.

The decision to end the program, a decision buried in a thousand-page spending bill and announced right before the holidays, destroys the hopes and dreams of thousands of D.C. families. Parents and children have rallied countless times over the past year in support of reauthorization and in favor of strengthening the OSP.

Yet, despite the clearly positive results and the proven success of this program, Sen. Dick Durbin, Rep. Jose Serrano, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, and Secretary Arne Duncan worked together to kill the OSP. Funding the program only for existing children shrinks the program each year, compromises the federal evaluation of the program, denies entry to the siblings of existing participants, and punishes those children waiting in line by sentencing them to failing and often unsafe schools. [emphasis mine]

The final report on the OSP program was issued in June 2010.  An editorial in the Washington Post agrees that ending the program should not have happened and deserves a second chance:

(more…)

Government restricting our constitutional rights in the name of “protecting the children,” is, sadly, nothing new. But when a guy who has made well in excess of $100 million making violent movies seeks to ban the sale of violent video games to minors – that’s individuals under the age of 18 – well, we are being treated to a truly breathtaking display of hypocrisy. As Governor of California, Arnold “the Governator” Schwarzenegger is the lead plaintiff in a case to be argued before the Supreme Court this fall that seeks to uphold a California law banning the sale of violent video games to minors.

I’m a little puzzled as to why SCOTUS even accepted this case. The law in question and similar statutes in other states rightly have been found unconstitutional by 12 different courts, including federal district courts and most recently, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. I’m hoping that the Supremes are simply taking this case to end this foolishness once and for all. But I digress.

Arnold Schwarzenegger’s ultra-violent Terminator, Predator and Conan series alone have reaped him tens of millions of dollars. And in case you didn’t notice, all of those movies spawned video games which I can only assume brought more money into Arnold’s pockets. And lest we forget, Arnold’s action hero flicks are routinely marketed to kids. Don’t believe me? Forgot about your Terminator action-figure that you left in your parent’s basement when you left for college?

The California ban is beyond legally dubious. It’s downright laughable.

(more…)

Big Government.com alerted it readers weeks ago about the emerging model for rationing health care at the FDA.  The FDA is considering “de-listing” the drug Avastin for use with breast cancer patients– not because it doesn’t work, but because of its cost.

With a new government health care regime paradigm being established, cost to insurance companies and government health care services will play a critical role in whether patients will have the option of life extending drugs.

The Susan G. Komen Foundation and the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance has joined the Avastin fight and is pushing back on behalf of patients.

In a letter to the FDA and congressional lawmakers, OCNA and Komen for the Cure express concern for the impact on patients who are currently benefitting from the drug, concern for the impact on future drug development and cite concerns about fundamental fairness problems with subjective determinations that limit access to treatments.

(more…)