Here’s an idea for how to start the New Year in a bipartisan fashion: Let’s go over the fiscal cliff! Today, the only ones in Washington who advocate fiscal cliff-diving are liberal Democrats. It’s time for conservatives to join them. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire will strengthen the GOP’s hand in tax negotiations next year, and it may be the only way Republicans can force President Obama and Senate Democrats to agree to fundamental tax reform. Right now, Democrats believe they have the upper hand in the fiscal standoff. Patty Murray (Wash.) — the fourth-ranking Senate Democrat
In 1982 Reagan got rolled on a $3 in spending cuts to $1 in tax increases. The spending cuts never were to materialize. Again no spending cuts in 1986. Then Bush 41 got rolled - no spending cuts materialized. Somehow we are to believe that the draconian cuts will materialize and not just the defense ones.
I say, if the cuts are REAL then lets go over the cliff to prove it.
Whatever happens in this lame duck the Repubs must make it permanent. Never again should we hand such a huge cudgel to our opponents as the automatically expiring Bush tax rates became. For over a decade we have been fighting against the "Bush tax cuts for the rich" as every dem since Gore has droned on and on about how to spend all that revenue Bush bestowed on the millionaires and billionaires.
Why is there a fiscal cliff at all? For a decade the media has reported that Bush´s tax cuts only helped the wealthy, not the middle class. So wouldn´t allowing them to "expire" simply accomplish what Obama promised?
The absolute worst outcome, and one the RHINOS will probably walk right into would be anothe extension, expiring right about election time in 2014 so the left can demagogue this issue one more time.
Face it the left never ever wants the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire, it is their strongest class warfare campaign issue. An automatic tax hike on everyone that can be portrayed as an evil republican plot to protect the uber rich.
Whatever happens, whatever the cost, kill the sunset clause once and for all.
Always wondered where this "cliff" came from? Found out that the "cliff" refers to Bush tax cuts expiring AND the "sequestrations" from that Joint Select Committee of Congrees in 2011. The "going over the cliff" will hurt the middle class and working poor, a majority (when combining the 2 classes) who elected the Won. Maybe it´s time to call the bluff and go over the cliff to see what really will happen with the spending cuts?
Too bad, that Joint Select Committee did not add the requirement for Obummer to send up a budget.
Who do the rich Democrats in Hollywood, Wall Street and the multi-million black sports figures give their money to? Not the Republicans. Wake up Republicans, you have been hit over your head for years for all the wrong reasons. Let the taxes go up and you might have a chanch to win the next election.
you need to know this...hollywood actors and actresses and the wonderful sports figures will not have their taxes increased.. they are "independant contractors" so they dont pay the in crease in taxes...why do you think they are all for the tax increase...because it does not affect them...i.e. Babs Striseand..Whoppied Goldberg...Barbar Walters..Shawn Penn..they dont pay the increase...
I´m all for spending cuts, too. The problem is that Defense is going to bear the brunt of them. However, I found myself commenting during several conversations this weekend that "we apparently haven´t hit bottom yet." Obama wanted sequestration so let´s give it to him - it will be last we hear about his sidekick Shecky running in ´16.
Remember "targeted tax cuts?" I think it´s time we had "targeted tax increases!" Pass a new bill that sets a 99% rate on all movie stars and just for grins make it retroactive to 2008, then, after we see how much revenue that brings in we can talk about other revenue measures!
AMEN!! Yes it will hurt. But it will hurt the very dumbasses who elected this clowncar for a second round the MOST. Maybe then they´ll learn a little something about economics. DO IT REPUBS--for once, please GROW A PAIR and shove this right down their throats. Ironically, it´s the only hope we have of saving this country...
Wilberforce, in the Parliament of old, argued against slavery in the British realm. It took him 20 years to make his point, which means he had to survive a number of election challenges. Oh, to have statesmen that didn´t fold like a rookie at a poker table full of card sharps. Stay with principle...even if you LOSE!
I´m happy to see this column and Marc Thiessen´s column from earlier this week get support from my fellow conservatives.
Republicans have protected the people who voted for bigger government for too long. All the spending has just been passed on to future generations. Let´s see what happens when their taxes go up too and they have to pay for their choices.
One of the most predictable features of American politics is the biannual blackmail to which the Democrats are subjected by their union bosses. Knowing that “the Party of Jefferson and Jackson” cannot survive without their support, union goons like Richard Trumka usually start the process by complaining about some law that allegedly hurts workers. Then, after a month or two of bombast and bluster, we find that their definition of “worker” is actually “union member” and that they want the Democrats to grant them a special dispensation (snip) This is how the infamous Obamacare waiver program was hatched.
As they watch Obamacare shudder and smoke through the final countdown to its January liftoff, some of its advocates have discretely eased away from the launch pad to avoid political injury when the ramshackle contraption finally explodes. Yet the perversity of progressivism is such that, even now, most supporters of the law refuse to admit that the countdown should stop. Their primary justifications for this irresponsible position are that no one has offered an alternative vehicle for reform and that, even with its flaws, Obamacare will effect a marked improvement in the dysfunctional health care system
The New York mayoral race this week detoured into one of the occasional rounds of umbrage-taking that are a regular feature of American campaigns, as City Council Speaker Christine Quinn claimed that the wife of Public Advocate Bill de Blasio unfairly criticized Quinn for being childless. This wouldn’t necessarily be a big deal, even in terms of our little municipal election, except that the quote was actually a misquote. Making matters worse: The misquoter was New York Times political columnist Maureen Dowd. And Maureen Dowd has something of a history of screw-ups like this.
Wretched Writing: A Compendium of Crimes Against the English Language By Ross Petras and Kathryn Petras (Penguin, 214 pages, $15.00) In 2010, 328,259 new books were published in the United States. Most of these, one imagines, were not very good, but probably not so bad either. For all the pallets of titles demanding neither praise nor execration, there are bound to have been a few hundred genuine clunkers. Negative criticism is as fun to write as it is to read, but most reviewers end up sinking their fangs into only one or two really bad books per publishing season.
FOR YEARS AS a professional journalist, Quin Hillyer has slung editorial copy under tight deadlines. As a congressional press secretary for half a decade in the 1990s, he was virtually always on call, ready to field probing questions from reporters, day or night. But running for public office is something else entirely. “It’s exhausting. It’s the hardest work I’ve ever done,” Hillyer says. “I get up a lot earlier than I used to.” It was just four months ago that Hillyer went from perennial campaign-watcher to first-time candidate.
Last week, Karl Rove opined that a GOP attempt to defund Obamacare would be analogous to Pickett’s Charge at the Battle of Gettysburg. His analogy was trite as well as inaccurate, yet Gettysburg does contain a lesson for establishment Republicans who oppose defunding. Its moral lies not in Pickett’s disastrous charge, however, but in the failure of Union General George Meade to follow up his defensive Pennsylvania victory by attacking the Confederate forces as they withdrew to the safety of Virginia. Meade’s timidity extended the Civil War by two years and rendered his Commander-in-Chief nearly apoplectic with frustration.
Among the most offensive features of the ironically titled “Affordable Care Act” is its designation of the Internal Revenue Service as the main enforcer of the law’s many mandates, taxes, penalties and reporting requirements. It exponentially increases the power of a group of bureaucrats notorious for repeatedly abusing their authority. Now, highlighting the growing gulf between the government and the governed that has become the hallmark of the Obama era, these IRS enforcers are asking their congressional representatives to spare them the indignity of enrolling in Obamacare’s insurance exchanges.
When Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services strode to the podium at last week’s NAACP conference, it was expected that she would engage in a certain amount of pandering to the grievance mongers who have long since taken control of that once-great organization. Such tawdry displays are, after all, a standard feature of the Democrat repertoire. It isn’t clear, however, that anyone anticipated the depth of sheer demagoguery to which she would descend in that speech. She compared Obamacare’s opponents to the people who opposed civil rights during the 1960s, embroidered her father’s civil rights record and even added
As far back as 1604, when James I of England published A Counter-Blaste To Tobacco, smoking has been recognized as a public health threat. There have since been countless attempts to discourage tobacco use by the general populace. Among the few such efforts to achieve any success has been the practice, by insurance companies, of charging higher health premiums for smokers than for non-smokers. Thus, not even Obamacare’s opponents objected when its authors inserted a provision permitting insurers to penalize smokers with a 50% surcharge. Predictably, however, Obama administration ineptitude will prevent this provision from taking effect.
The White House says the decision, announced last Tuesday, to delay implementation of Obamacare’s employer mandate was made because “a dialogue with businesses” revealed the need to reduce the reporting burden it placed on employers. This tale is enough to make a cat laugh. This crew doesn’t do “dialogue.” Your BS detector badly needs a tune up if it didn’t start buzzing when Valerie Jarrett blogged, “We’re listening.” The delay is obviously due to the ineptitude of the Obama administration, and this is the fourth major provision of PPACA to be repealed or delayed for the same reason.
Documents Show Liberals in I.R.S. Dragnet," read the New York Times headline. "Dem: ´Progressive´ Groups Were Also Targeted by IRS," said U.S. News. The scandal has "evaporated into thin air," bayed the excitable Andrew Sullivan. A breathlessly exonerative narrative swept the news media this week: that liberal groups had been singled out and, by implication, abused by the IRS, just as conservative groups had been. Therefore, the scandal wasn´t a scandal but a mere bungle—a nonpolitical series of unhelpful but innocent mistakes. The problem with this story is that liberals were not caught in the IRS dragnet.
It´s now official. America is the France of the 21st century. France was a big power in the 18th and 19th Centuries. The French were pretty much in a constant state of war what with everything from the Seven Years´ War, to the French and Indian Wars, to the American Revolution, to the Napoleonic Wars.Then came the 20th Century when World War I was mostly fought on French soil leading to their preemptive surrender in World War II. Since then the French still pretend to be a full-fledged member of the Planetary Cool Kids Table,
The woman whose opinion lawmakers are relying on to go to war in Syria is also a paid advocate for the war-torn country’s rebels. On Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry encouraged members of the House of Representatives to read a Wall Street Journal op-ed by 26-year-old Elizabeth O’Bagy — an analyst with the Institute for the Study of War — who asserted that concerns about extremists dominating among the Syrian rebels are unfounded. “Contrary to many media accounts, the war in Syria is not being waged entirely, or even predominantly, by dangerous Islamists and al-Qaida die-hards,” O’Bagy wrote for the Journal
The intense moment was posted on Twitter by CNBC´s Eamon Javers and described by Brett Logiurato of Business Insider as the president giving Putin "a significantly intense death stare upon their meeting at the G20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia." [Tweet, Photo] National Journal´s Matt Vasilogambros was less dramatic in his description of the 15 second meeting between the two leaders, calling it "awkward and friendly", and surmising that as Obama walked away, Putin thought to himself,
Russia last night issued a chilling threat to assist Syria if the US leads military strikes against its hated regime. As a summit of world leaders broke up in acrimony, Vladimir Putin declared openly that he is already supplying arms to Syrian tyrant Bashar Assad and vowed to step up support if a planned missile attack goes ahead. There were gasps as the Russian President made his remarks after being asked how he would react if Barack Obama proceeds with an attack in response to Syria’s used of chemical weapons. ‘Will we help Syria? We will. And we are already helping,
If the House voted today on a resolution to attack Syria, President Barack Obama would lose — and lose big. That’s the private assessment of House Republican and Democratic lawmakers and aides who are closely involved in the process. If the Senate passes a use-of-force resolution next week — which is no sure thing — the current dynamics suggest that the House would defeat it. That would represent a dramatic failure for Obama, and once again prove that his sway over Congress is extraordinarily limited. The loss would have serious reverberations throughout the next three months, when Obama faces off against Congress
President Obama said that the U.S. talk of military action in Syria is bypassing the "hocus pocus" of the U.N.: "Frankly, if we weren´t talking about the need for an international response right now, this wouldn´t be what everybody would be asking about," said Obama at a press conference this morning. "You know, there would be some resolutions that were being proffered in the United Nations and the usual hocus pocus, but the world and the country would have moved on. So trying to impart a sense of urgency about this, why we can´t have an environment in which over
Michelle Obama credited her anti-obesity program with bringing about a "cultural shift" in the way Americans eat. "Make no mistake about it. We are changing the conversation in this country. We are creating a cultural shift on how we live and eat. And our efforts are having an impact on our children´s lives." The first lady touted the success of her Let´s Move anti-obesity program during a visit on Friday to Orr Elementary School in Washington, D.C. Obama said when she first began her signature initiative, she couldn´t imagine a time when fast-food commercials advertised for breakfast sandwiches made with egg whites. And
Newark — The 14-year-old boy shot and killed in a Terrell Homes at Riverview Court courtyard Wednesday night had 30 bricks of heroin and a loaded handgun in his bedroom, according to law enforcement sources and a police documents. The victim, identified as Ali Rajohn Eric Henderson, had several prior arrests for drug possession and robbery, according to police documents and law enforcement officials familiar with the investigation who declined to be identified because they are not yet authorized to speak about the investigation. His last contact with police was on Aug. 15th, when he was arrested for possession of
The statesmanlike case for voting Yes on the congressional resolution to use force against the Assad regime has been made widely and well by conservative foreign policy thinkers. At the end, the case boils down to this: As a policy matter, a Yes vote may be problematic in all kinds of ways. But a No vote would likely be disastrous for the nation in very clear ways. Statesmanship requires choosing the problematic over the disastrous. It’s true that Republicans on the Hill lack confidence in President Obama’s execution of the military action they are being asked to vote to authorize.
War presidents don’t quibble. They don’t leak. They don’t go AWOL. They aren’t dispirited or downbeat. They aren’t ambivalent about the mission. And most important of all, war presidents are never irresolute. These are a few of the rules for presidents before, during, and after the country goes to war. On Syria, President Obama disregards all of them. This should mean one of two things. Either Obama is a poor war president, at least in the current pre-war stage, or he’s an altogether different kind of war president. In his World War II memoirs, Winston Churchill offered this lesson: “In war,
Barack Obama is to meet gay activists during his G20 visit to Russia in what is being viewed as a snub to Vladimir Putin´s controversial new equality laws that outlaw ´homosexual propaganda´. As Obama prepared to meet Russia´s civil society leaders, including some gay activists, after meeting leaders at the G20 summit, about two dozen activists rallied in St Petersburg to protest against the law. In June, Putin signed a bill that classified ´homosexual propaganda´ as pornography and provides for fines and arrest for those making it accessible to minors. The same legislation gave the national government the authority to
There is proof the footage of the alleged chemical attack in Syria was fabricated, Mother Agnes Mariam el-Salib, mother superior of St. James Monastery in Qara, Syria, told RT. She says she is about to submit her findings to the UN. Mother Agnes, a catholic nun, who has been living in Syria for 20 years and has been reporting actively on what has been going on in the war-ravaged country, says she carefully studied the video featuring allegedly victims of the chemical weapons attack in the Syrian village of Guta in August and now questions its authenticity. In her interview
The federal government has spent $2.2 million studying why three quarters of lesbians are obese despite sequestration-mandated budget cuts that critics warned could “delay progress in medical breakthroughs.” The National Institutes of Health awarded an additional $682,873 to Brigham and Women’s Hospital for the study on July 17. The project had received previous grants of $778,622 in 2011, and $741,378 in 2012. Total funding has reached $2,202,873. The project has survived budget cuts due to sequestration, which the NIH warned would “delay progress in medical breakthroughs.” The study, being led by S. Bryn Austin, an associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, sets