The U.S. travel technology firm Sabre may not ring an immediate bell, and perhaps you’ve not yet heard…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
On Sabre/Farelogix Merger, DOJ Mustn’t Undertake a Misguided Antitrust Boondoggle

The U.S. travel technology firm Sabre may not ring an immediate bell, and perhaps you’ve not yet heard of its proposed acquisition of Farelogix, but it looms as one of the most important antitrust cases to approach trial since AT&T/Time-Warner. The transaction’s most significant aspect is the way in which it offers a perfect illustration of overzealous bureaucratic antitrust enforcement, and the way that can delay and also punish American consumers. Specifically, the transaction enhances rather than inhibits market competition, and will benefit both travelers and the travel industry by accelerating innovation.  That’s in part because Sabre and Farelogix aren’t head-to-head market competitors, but rather complementary businesses.  While Sabre serves customers throughout the…[more]

January 13, 2020 • 03:53 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Deficit Growing Again, Despite Record Income Tax Haul Print
By Timothy H. Lee
Thursday, April 16 2015
If Obama considers yet another deficit of almost $1 trillion "austere," imagine the deficit if his vast bureaucratic spending wishes were fulfilled.

So Americans paid $1.4 trillion in income taxes for 2014, a new record high.  For 2015, the expected total is even higher. 

It is therefore unsurprising that a majority of Americans consider the amount of taxes they pay "too high" as opposed to "about right," according to a new Gallup survey.  Just 3% - perhaps the survey respondents who happen to work  for federal, state or local governments - consider taxes "too low." 

Despite record tax receipts and unacceptably high rates, however, the Treasury Department announced this week that the federal budget deficit actually widened for the first half of fiscal 2015.  At $439 billion, that would result in a full-year deficit of $900 billion if numerically doubled.  And that's fully 6% higher than last year at the same point. 

Keep in mind that even that bleak deficit number occurred under the federal budget "sequester," which Barack Obama curiously labels "mindless austerity."  If Obama considers yet another deficit of almost $1 trillion "austere," imagine the deficit if his vast bureaucratic spending wishes were fulfilled. 

Actually, we needn't imagine.  The first years of his administration constituted - by far - the worst deficit record of any president in American history. 

Prior to Obama, we had never witnessed a single deficit measured in the trillions, or even half a trillion dollars.  But Obama rattled off four in a row. 

This from the man who promised in February 2009 that, "today I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office." 

That was an early false promise among many to come. 

When Obama offered that assurance, the most recent deficit was $458 billion, by far the worst of George W. Bush's presidency.  Over the entirety of his eight-year tenure, Bush's average deficit was $251 billion.  And even casting Bush in the most negative light, by attributing the entire 2009 deficit to him and removing the 2001 fiscal year surplus from his credit, he still averages just $444 billion for the years 2002 through 2009. 

Now let's roll the tape on Obama. 

The fiscal 2009 deficit reached $1.4 trillion, which was followed in 2010 by a deficit of $1.3 trillion and in 2011 by another $1.3 trillion total.  His election year of 2012 brought another $1.1 trillion deficit, followed by deficits of $680 billion and then $492 billion last year. 

Even in the most charitable light, excluding the 2009 deficit over which he presided for almost 9 months and for which he was partly responsible due to such things as his wasteful "stimulus," Obama's average deficit for the years 2010 through 2014 stands at a staggering $973 billion. 

When Obama's "stimulus" spending year of 2009 is included, his deficit average rises to a more reflective $1.05 trillion. 

Accordingly, perhaps his nickname should be "The Trillion-Dollar Deficit Man" instead of his preferred "No-Drama Obama." 

Recall also that when he was running for president in 2008, Obama labeled Bush's spending record "unpatriotic."  As a sidenote, leftists like Obama often get away with tossing that "unpatriotic" assertion around because everyone knows it doesn't stick.  But whenever turnabout occurs, and someone like Rudy Giuliani questions Obama's own patriotism, somehow the same label is suddenly outrageous. 

Regardless, Obama's deficit record stands as the worst in U.S. history by a great distance, dwarfing even a predecessor who received merciless criticism for his comparatively modest deficits.  Which adds a particularly unseemly quality to Obama's ongoing efforts to draw praise for "cutting the deficit in half" after tripling them for several consecutive years. 

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton officially commenced her 2016 presidential campaign this week. 

Her obvious dilemma is how to balance her need to retain Obama's remaining devotees while distancing herself from his atrocious foreign and domestic performance record.  Whether spoken or implicit, she will likely attempt to capitalize upon memories of the more halcyon aspects of the 1990s to the greatest degree possible. 

When it comes to federal deficits, we might indeed do well to return to 2000 budget parameters, when incoming revenues were merely $2 trillion while spending reached just $1.77 trillion - half today's amount. 

But somehow, one doubts that's what Hillary has in mind. 

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following was the first African-American soloist to appear at the Metropolitan Opera House in New York City?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
"If there were such egregious misconduct that the public was convinced of the need to remove Trump, such that two-thirds of the Senate would ignore partisan ties and do just that, there would be no partisan stunts. Democratic leaders would have worked cooperatively with their GOP counterparts, as was done in prior impeachments. They would have told the president: 'Sure, you can have your lawyers here…[more]
—Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review
— Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review
Liberty Poll   

Should witnesses be called for the Senate impeachment trial, which could take weeks or even months, or be restricted to the record and evidence already produced by the House?