Posts tagged ‘Political commentary’

December 13, 2011

This President has Never been about Jobs, but what?

by Steve Dana

President Obama often talks about how everyone needs to pay their fair share and then points to successful citizens as taking advantage of the system; but in a negative way, rather than using their example of success as encouragement for others to be successful as well.  At a time when many Americans are struggling, Obama and many of his ilk are angry because some Americans are not struggling so much.

Think about all the immigrants who became the foundation of our country over the years.  When asked why they sacrificed everything to come to America, they answered with two things; liberty and economic opportunity.  They wanted to be free and have the chance to work hard and be successful in America.

Liberty and Economic Opportunity!

When the Democrats try to rationalize how folks who don’t pay a dime of federal income tax are paying more than their fair share, they compile all the increases in their cost of living as evidence supporting their case. 

So who or what is driving up the cost of living for Americans?

The short answer, your government!

Who wrote the tax code that gives General Electric the loopholes so they pay no tax?  Who wrote the regulations that told banks to make loans to folks who couldn’t afford to pay for them?  Who passed the laws that enable a single person to file a frivolous lawsuit that prevents a factory from being built without either proof or economic penalty for failing to provide proof?

Don’t get me started about why food cost has risen so much!

Once again, your government!

I remember when he was Candidate Obama he said that by necessity energy costs would have to increase.  He didn’t explain too well why it was necessary but knowing that higher energy costs would unfairly target lower income Americans he spent the past two and a half years working to raise energy costs.  I think the strategy was to raise the price on current cheap energy so the really expensive “ALTERNATIVE ENERGY” companies the President and his cronies wanted to promote appeared more competitive.  We all know how that worked out with Solyndra and others.

It appears that strategy worked as far a supporting Obama’s core supporters, but hardly Main Street Americans.  Could it be that average Americans are not his first priority?  Think about those union construction workers not going to work because of the Keystone Pipeline deal being delayed.  Could it be that the rank and file union workers are not his first priority either?

At a time when the President talks about energy independence from foreign sources, he turns his back on American energy companies and offers billions of American dollars to Brazil to develop their petroleum resources which just happen to be found in deep water off their coast. 

So the President is subsidizing oil exploration and development for Brazil so we can pay them for the foreign oil rather than Saudi Arabia or Kuwait while depriving American workers of family wage jobs on the oil rigs and in the refineries here at home.

I would think that if deep water drilling is as risky to the environment as the President suggests, then it shouldn’t matter if it’s in Louisiana or Brazil, should it?  And, maybe if we shouldn’t be subsidizing American oil companies, certainly we shouldn’t be subsidizing foreign oil companies either.  And if it’s good for the Brazilian economy to create jobs in the petroleum industry it’s got to be really good for Americans too, right?

When the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency was asked in a Congressional hearing whether his folks ever considered the economic impacts of the regulations they adopted, he indicated that they did not.  So what’s so important about that?  Well, think about the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act for starters.  Your utility bills in your homes are impacted by changing standards for you local water and sewer providers.  Your PUD rates are severely impacted by regulatory changes for our hydro-electric and nuclear energy producers.

Folks in my small city experience these impacts every day.  In 1992 we built a state of the art sewage treatment plant designed to meet current and future discharge standards as outlined by the Washington State Department of Ecology but in 1993 when the plant was completed, Federal regulations had changed to the point where the plant was out of compliance before it ever processed a gallon of sewage. 

Since I was Mayor at the time, I took a lot of heat for that but we did what we were told by both the state and federal regulators at the time.  Those changes affected thousands of other small cities and millions of people; and not in a positive way.  When asked whether he was concerned about those folks who had been damaged, a DOE staffer replied that it wasn’t his job to be concerned about economic hardships.

There is no doubt that the cost of living has increased substantially, but I suspect that if you want to point fingers, the Democrats are more responsible for those increases than Republicans.

Our challenge today is to get Americans back to work at jobs that will support families.  That means the government has to roll back regulations that strangle job producers while still considering the mission of their agency.  The EPA still needs to do a job, but not at the expense of our economy.

Those Occupy Wall Street protesters may have a legitimate beef, but the culprit is not the guy that followed the rules, it’s the government for making the rules.  How many times have you yourself said “just tell me what the rules are so I can get on with my project?”

Given the choice of creating family wage jobs in the energy industries and even the financial industry or inhibiting job creation with more excessive regulation, the President and the Democrats consistently choose more regulation.  What does that tell you about their priorities?

Then take a look at their fall back position on every issue today; raising income tax rates on everyone earning more than a million dollars per year.  Even though studies show that the revenue needed to solve even one of the problems would not be collected by the increase they propose.  Remember the discussions about raising the debt ceiling, RAISE TAXES ON THE RICH!  Remember the Super Committee, cut spending by RAISING TAXES ON THE RICH!  Remember talks about Entitlement Reform, RAISE TAXES ON THE RICH!

Our problems have gotten so big even Bill Gates and Warren Buffet can’t come to our rescue.

Why isn’t anyone talking about that?

Raising taxes on rich folks will not solve a problem with spending that increases 8% per year, every year while the economy only grows at 2%.

August 8, 2011

Only in Government is Cutting Spending Increasing Spending

by Steve Dana

In the course of the lengthy discussion regarding the national debt and deficits I couldn’t help but wonder if we all understood the accepted definitions of terms.  In so many cases the same terms were used in different contexts. 

For example; the term “budget cuts”?  For you and me, a cut to my budget is spending less in the next cycle than I did in the current cycle.  For the government cutting the budget is not spending less, it’s cutting the rate of growth of government spending.  You and I would spend less, they would spend more, but supposedly decrease the year over year rate of growth.  Where did they learn their math?

How about “tax reform”? Is “tax reform” raising rates or changing structure?  Republicans tried to focus on cutting spending to reduce current deficits while Democrats wanted to incorporate “tax reform” into the debate to achieve the desired outcome.  They seem to think that if a guy can afford a jet he isn’t paying enough tax.  According to Democrats, balancing the budget must include both cuts in spending and tax reform.  I could go along with that if “reform” meant addressing the tax code in total rather than just raising the rates higher on the folks who are already paying the lion’s share of the taxes already.

In a perverted way, I’ve been amused about the characterization by the “left” that the country is being screwed by the nation’s high earners because they aren’t paying their fair share of taxes; yet according to the Congressional Budget Office 51% of Americans pay no Federal Income Taxes at all.  That is Zero Federal Income Tax paid by 51% of Americans but according to the Democrats in Congress, they’re over taxed. 

While the top 5% of American earners pay 40% of the Federal Income Tax collected and the top 15% of American earners pay 75% of the Federal Income Tax but according to Democrats in Congress they aren’t paying their fair share.  What am I missing?  One side pays no tax but is over taxed and the other side pays all the tax but is not paying their fair share.

I think most Americans agree the Tax Code is too complex to be fair.  And “fair” is variable that moves back and forth depending on your personal interests.  I suspect that if we were given a choice of keeping the current federal income tax system or dumping it all for a flat tax of maybe 8%, most Americans would opt for a flat tax that treats everyone the same.  If you earn $100,000 you pay $8,000; if you earn a million bucks you would pay $80,000 and if you earned $25,000 you would pay $2,000.  Everyone would pay based upon what they earned (at the same rate).  Everyone pays the same rate but based upon their earnings they pay more or less.  That sounds like tax reform.

And finally, this agreement between the parties regarding raising the debt limit; the Democrats didn’t get tax increases, but the Republicans didn’t get any meaningful cuts and the President got an agreement to increase the national debt by 20% over the next 18 months.  That is another increase of the debt from $14.2 Trillion to $16.4 trillion by election day in 2012. Then factor in the 12 person committee that will either cut a trillion or so in government spending or cut the Defense budget by another $800 Billion.  How could Republicans view any of this as a victory?  As far as I can tell, this was another huge giveaway to the Democrats.  I am baffled how we let this happen.

March 8, 2011

Squishy or Slippery, That is our President!

by Steve Dana

I was listening to Dave Ross this morning as I was driving on the highway.  Since Dave added Luke Burbank to his show, the content of that 9am to Noon time slot has gotten even more liberal.  I would not characterize the change as a positive one.

Dave and Luke were talking about how disappointed they were that President Obama has decided to move forward with military tribunals at Gitmo even though in the campaign he was clear about closing the prison and trying the inmates in civilian courts.  Rather than being upset that he made a commitment to voters and reneged like he has done on about every important issue in the election Dave and Luke were talking about how much they admired the President for being flexible when presented with information that led to a different action.

Luke Burbank characterized Obama as being squishy.  He like the fact that the President was squishy.

There have been a number of times when the President has “realized the error” of his campaign  rhetoric and directed his administration to act 180 degrees different from the promises in the campaign.

If you didn’t know enough about his record or his political leanings before the election in 2008 to vote for him you were looking for a reason to choose one candidate over the other.  You were listening to the words he was speaking so eloquently and were convinced he was your guy because of those words.  When he said he would close Gitmo and that was your issue, you decided to vote for him.

So how do you feel now?

The reason Dave and Luke characterize Obama as squishy is because he is not afraid to say what you want to hear but act completely different when a decision has to be made.  Think about how many times he promised to act if you voted for him but when push came to shove, he flip-flopped.  Is that the president you thought we elected?  Is that the kind of man we want leading our country?

If there was ever a “bait and switch” president, this is him.

We have a huge task before us to hinder him from delivering any more of his true agenda during the remainder of this term of office; and to replace him with a candidate who stands behind his words.  Where I am more likely to support conservative candidates, some of you might just want a candidate of your own persuasion that is not a prevaricator.

In the remaining months of his presidency Barak Obama will make every effort to convince voters that he is a moderate with his words like he does so well.  What will be important is to watch what he does.  His actions are a much better indicator of his political agenda than his words.

If he has any leadership he should be showing it now.  Skyrocketing fuel prices caused by the crisis in the Arab world; two significant issues requiring leadership.  What is he doing to address either?

In the State of the Union speech he talked about cutting the deficit.  The Republicans in the House sent a bill to the Senate addressing last year’s budget with 60 billion in cuts.  If the President is serious about his words in the speech, he works to get the Democratic Senate to approve the House Bill.  Let’s see what kind of leadership he has with his own party?

During his campaign, he talked about putting on a comfortable pair of shoes to walk the picket line with union members because everyone is entitled to union representation.  State Budgets are hemorrhaging red ink because of commitments to made to unions and the President is more concerned about the workers.

Leadership is what we need and this guy doesn’t appear to have any.  He is a good looking smooth talking politician but a leader he is not.

March 7, 2011

What Does a Legislator Cost These Days?

by Steve Dana

Even after a couple of weeks, the stalemate in Wisconsin persists.  Government is at a stand still.  Patience is wearing thin.  So what is next?

I am surprised that Republicans and the independents in Wisconsin have been as patient as they have.  I’m not sure I would have been so restrained.

The issues haven’t changed a bit so what is changing?

The unions are working overtime to tie the governor’s actions to private sector business owners who may have contributed to his campaign.  When you don’t have anything substantial to add to the debate, you attack your opponent.  Where else have we seen that tactic?

But since they brought it up, what’s the connection between public employee unions and private sector contributors?  Or maybe more important yet, what are the implications of public employee unions contributing to elected officials.

When the unions contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to elect Democrats don’t they have expectations that something will be delivered?  Who advocates for the taxpayers when the unions elect the guys that negotiate their contracts?

I heard Governor Walker talk about contributors to his campaign and he acknowledged receiving contributions from business owners, but he received most of his money from citizens who may or may not have been big business in any way.  Take a look at the Public Disclosure documents if you really want to know.  Rules for individuals and businesses are different for unions and PAC’s

Check the PDC’s for almost any Democrat in the land and you will see the majority of the money comes from either unions or political action committees because rules allow unions and PAC’s to give in greater amounts.  I wonder who negotiated that advantage?

What is so surprising to the Democrats in the Mid-West is the stunning upset they suffered in the 2010 elections and they are still reeling from it.  It has to be a bitter pill after all their years in the drivers’ seat to see everything they worked for come crashing down because of their failure to properly read the sentiment of the people.

In Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio, the legislatures and governors have changed because voters in those states realized that union sponsored candidates were serving the unions and not the citizens of their states.  And that is really the issue here. 

Taxpayers in these states and others are finding that they have been used by entrenched Democrats to serve unions and their special interests and they’re finally getting wise.  The problems being exposed by the bad economy are shining a really bright light on the Democrats and they are uncomfortable.

While I have been critical of Democrats I’m not suggesting that Republicans are always straight shooters because they have been just as greedy and/or corrupt as Democrats at times.

A lesson for voters everywhere might be that we have an obligation to be vigilant, to watch our elected officials and make sure that when they make promises in their campaign they deliver or are held accountable in the next election. Elected officials are called public servants for a reason.  Let’s make sure ours serve the public and not the special interests.

We can only hope that voters in our state will begin to see the parallels between these mid-West states and our own and dump the liberal progressive tax and spenders from our legislature.

So what camp are you in?