| |
On Government Spending and the Middle Class: |
|
| |
"In 1900, government spending at all three levels -- local, state and federal -- amounted to about 10 percent of national income. Government spending today amounts to 40 percent -- or 50 percent, if one places a dollar value on the unfunded mandates imposed on states and businesses by Washington. The voters re-elected a President who increased the national debt faster and by a greater amount than any previous administration. And there are simply not enough rich folks to pay for it.
"Obama, on Nov. 6, won the political argument to continue to expand government. But the election did nothing to change 'the math.' Memo to the middle class: Get ready, you're next." |
|
| |
— Larry Elder, Author, Attorney and Syndicated Columnist
|
|
|
— Larry Elder, Author, Attorney and Syndicated Columnist
|
|
Posted December 13, 2012 • 07:54 AM
|
|
|
| |
On Unions and Right-to-Work Laws: |
|
| |
"Right-to-work laws do not ban unions. They merely ensure that workers can no longer be coerced to pay them. They also create workplace conditions under which even union members are no longer a captive audience, forced to bow to whatever decisions the union leadership makes.
"And that's what the union leaders fear most." |
|
| |
— The Editors, The Washington Examiner
|
|
|
— The Editors, The Washington Examiner
|
|
Posted December 12, 2012 • 08:08 AM
|
|
|
| |
On ObamaCare and State Sovereignty |
|
| |
"It is unclear what exactly the outcome will be when Obamacare’s avalanche of regulations lands upon the health-care industry. We believe that the consequences are likely to be unpleasant and unpopular, and that those state leaders who enable them are likely to pay a high political price for doing so. If imposing heavy new taxes and cumbrous new regulations upon their states’ residents is not enough, political self-interest alone should counsel state leaders against putting their imprimatur upon the exchanges.
"Oklahoma is suing to secure its sovereignty against Obamacare’s intrusions, and 14 states have passed laws (and in some cases constitutional amendments) forbidding state workers to enable the administration in implementing the mandate. The states are under no legal or constitutional obligation to establish the exchanges, and if enough of them refuse to do so, then Washington will have no choice but to revisit the deeply unpopular law, providing the country with an opportunity to excise some of Obamacare’s most obnoxious elements. And though full repeal remains an unlikely possibility with Democrats controlling the Senate and the White House, the worst aspects of the law can be delayed or stopped altogether until such a time as pulling up Obamacare by the roots becomes a real political possibility. Obamacare is a threat to American health care, to be sure, but it is also a threat to the character of American government — injuries to which are not easily healed." |
|
| |
— The Editors, National Review OnLine
|
|
|
— The Editors, National Review OnLine
|
|
Posted December 11, 2012 • 07:56 AM
|
|
|
| |
On the Republican Tax Panic: |
|
| |
"If any Republicans thought that President Obama would respond with magnanimity in victory, they now know better. He is determined to rout them on taxes, give as a little as possible on spending, and blame them for any economic damage in the bargain. The question for the GOP is how to minimize the harm to the economy, as well as to their chances of a political and policy comeback in 2014 and beyond. ...
"Mr. Obama wants to give the appearance of a looming fiscal crisis because it serves his political interest in spooking Republicans to give him everything he wants. He's pressing so hard for tax rate increases not because they will bring in much revenue but because he wants GOP tax cover for Democrats in 2014 and to get Republicans to concede that tax rates must rise. Once he pockets that, he'll be back by more.
"Republicans need not play along, and they and the country will suffer if they do. Above all, they need to start negotiating as a team with Mr. Obama and stop making premature concessions for the TV cameras that only make the White House less likely to meet them half way." |
|
| |
— The Editors, The Wall Street Journal
|
|
|
— The Editors, The Wall Street Journal
|
|
Posted December 10, 2012 • 07:56 AM
|
|
|
| |
On the December 7, 1941, Attack on Pearl Harbor: |
|
| |
“[On] December 7, 1941 – a date which will live in infamy – the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. …
"No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.
"I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us." |
|
| |
— President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Before a Joint Session of Congress, December 8, 1941
|
|
|
— President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Before a Joint Session of Congress, December 8, 1941
|
|
Posted December 07, 2012 • 08:18 AM
|
|
|
| |
On the Federal Budget and Beltway Rules: |
|
| |
"If the fiscal cliff talks make Lindsay Lohan look like a productive member of society, perhaps it's because President Obama and John Boehner are playing by the dysfunctional Beltway rules. The rules work if you like bigger government, but Republicans need a new strategy, which starts by exposing the rigged game of 'baseline budgeting.'
"Both the White House and House Republicans are pretending that their goal is 'reducing the deficit,' which they suggest means making real spending choices. ...
"Here's the reality: Those numbers have no real meaning because they are conjured in the wilderness of mirrors that is the federal budget process. Since 1974, Capitol Hill's 'baseline' has automatically increased spending every year according to Congressional Budget Office projections, which means before anyone has submitted a budget or cast a single vote. Tax and spending changes are then measured off that inflated baseline, not in absolute terms. ...
"If Republicans really want to slow the growth in spending, they need to stop playing by Beltway rules and start explaining to America why Mr. Obama keeps saying he's cutting spending even as spending and deficits keep going up and up and up." |
|
| |
— The Editors, The Wall Street Journal
|
|
|
— The Editors, The Wall Street Journal
|
|
Posted December 06, 2012 • 07:52 AM
|
|
|
| |
On the Blue-State Economic Suicide Pact: |
|
| |
"With their enthusiastic backing of President Obama and the Democratic Party on Election Day, the bluest parts of America may have embraced a program utterly at odds with their economic self-interest. The almost uniform support of blue states’ congressional representatives for the administration’s campaign for tax 'fairness' represents a kind of bizarre economic suicide pact.
"Any move to raise taxes on the rich — defined as households making over $250,000 annually — strikes directly at the economies of these states, which depend heavily on the earnings of high-income professionals, entrepreneurs and technical workers. In fact, when you examine which states, and metropolitan areas, have the highest concentrations of such people, it turns out they are overwhelmingly located in the bluest states and regions." |
|
| |
— Joel Kotkin, Author, Lecturer, Chapman University Professor of Urban Development and NewGeography.com Executive Editor
|
|
|
— Joel Kotkin, Author, Lecturer, Chapman University Professor of Urban Development and NewGeography.com Executive Editor
|
|
Posted December 05, 2012 • 07:45 AM
|
|
|
| |
On the GOP and Raising Tax Rates for High Income Earners: |
|
| |
"Republicans will cave on the question of raising the tax rate for the highest-income Americans. The only question is whether they do so before or after the government goes over the so-called fiscal cliff.
"First, many in the GOP do not believe that raising the rate on top earners from 35 percent to 39.6 percent (the rate before the Bush tax cuts) would seriously damage the economy. Second, they know that most Americans approve of higher taxes on the top bracket, and President Obama, having campaigned and won on that platform, seems dead-set on higher rates. Third, they fear that if the government does go over the cliff and Democrats propose re-lowering taxes for everyone except the highest earners, Republicans would be in the impossible position of resisting tax cuts for 98 percent of the country on behalf of the top 2 percent." |
|
| |
— Byron York, The Washington Examiner
|
|
|
— Byron York, The Washington Examiner
|
|
Posted December 04, 2012 • 08:08 AM
|
|
|
| |
On Congressional Republicans and the President's Fiscal Argument: |
|
| |
"Republicans underestimate their ability to win the fiscal-policy argument in the public arena. If everyone's taxes go up, voters will instinctively blame the party of higher taxes. Mr. Obama has spent two years hammering the country about the fairness of redistribution -- but Republicans have inoculated themselves against additional demagoguery by conceding and proposing that the rich pay more.
"The president's broader fiscal argument is even weaker. He demands new stimulus spending, abandons deficit reduction and serious entitlement reforms, double-counts previously enacted savings, and labels tax increases as a balanced approach. Republicans can win this debate and gain further negotiating leverage if they are willing to try." |
|
| |
— Keith Hennessey, Stanford Business and Law School Lecturer and Former National Economic Council Director for President George W. Bush
|
|
|
— Keith Hennessey, Stanford Business and Law School Lecturer and Former National Economic Council Director for President George W. Bush
|
|
Posted December 03, 2012 • 07:51 AM
|
|
|
| |
On the President's Fiscal-Cliff Offer to the GOP: |
|
| |
"[T]he most frightening aspect of the White House proposal is that it wasn't an error. Perhaps the proposal was thoroughly calculated. This suggests a president who doesn't care about the outcome of the cliff negotiations -- who thinks that he wins politically no matter what. He's betting that either the GOP will be far more responsible than he is and do anything to avert a crisis, or that the cliff gives him the tax hikes his partisans are demanding. Win-win, save for the enormous pain to average families across the country." |
|
| |
— Kimberly A. Strassel, The Wall Street Journal
|
|
|
— Kimberly A. Strassel, The Wall Street Journal
|
|
Posted November 30, 2012 • 07:52 AM
|
|
|
|