comMITTed to Romney!

Dick Morris is not my favorite commenter by a long shot, but he took the words out of my mouth with the excerpt below. The current buzz on the ‘Net is that we are all wondering if Obama could pass Econ 101.

~~John Cronin~~

http://townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=c9fbba1a-c3e9-484f-b748-8daf07e811c4&t=c

Conservatives are so aghast at the huge spending going on in Washington and the $1.75 trillion deficit (13 percent of our gross domestic product) it is causing them to overlook an even more basic question about the president: Is he competent? Does he know what he is doing?

To be specific: Does he know how to do anything other than spend money? His stimulus package, of course, took no special ability. He left the details of the projects up to the House Democrats, who are more than willing to fill in the blanks. But his two other major initiatives — his banking and mortgage relief plans — are both flawed and highly unlikely to solve their respective problems. Indeed, they are so wide of the mark that one has to ask if Obama is not only a radical but also an incompetent.

Share on Facebook

Share This

In the weeks after Obama’s election I thought there was at least a chance that he had played the Left big time. I thought, this guy talked the talk and walked the walk for over twenty years, courting the lefties to get there help in ringing the doorbells, stuffing the envelops and writing the checks to fund his campaigns but now that he is securely ensconced in the Oval Office, he doesn’t return their phone calls anymore.

That was then and this is now. Since the Inauguration, Obama has lived up to his advance billing as the most leftist President to ever occupy the White House and he is getting the reaction that we conservatives have been predicting for weeks: Tea Parties. Everywhere. On a shoestring. In parks. On waterfronts. College kids organizing events. Retirees. Stay at home Moms.

Any successful politician has got to have a good feel for what the folks are thinking, what they want from government. The current occupant of the Oval Office is either the most tin eared President ever, or he knows full well exactly what he is trying to accomplish and is openly defying the will of the taxpayers in order to pull off an internal coup and hand this country over to the Socialists who have been trying to bring this country to it’s knees for over a century.

The strength and ferocity of the expected backlash is something to behold. It reminds me of the days after 911, when people around the country started flying American flags, on their cars, the front porches of their homes, applying them to their clothing. Nobody told them to do it, it just seemed to come naturally. The Tea Parties have developed the same way. Because Obama’s reckless policies produced such a potentially explosive mixture, all the mixture needed was a spark to set off an explosion. As you all know, that spark was provided by CNBC’s Rick Santelli. Now it’s a movement.

~~John Cronin~~

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2199738/posts

By: Patrick J. Buchanan

In his campaign and inaugural address, Barack Obama cast himself as a moderate man seeking common ground with conservatives.

Yet, his budget calls for the radical restructuring of the U.S. economy, a sweeping redistribution of power and wealth to government and Democratic constituencies. It is a declaration of war on the right.

The real Mr. Obama has stood up, and lived up to his ranking as the most left-wing member of the United States Senate.

Barack has no mandate for this. He was even behind John McCain when the decisive event that gave him the presidency occurred — the September collapse of Lehman Brothers and the market crash.

Republicans are under no obligation to render bipartisan support to this statist coup d’etat. For what is going down is a leftist power grab that is anathema to their principles and philosophy.

Where the U.S. government usually consumes 21 percent of gross domestic product, this Obama budget spends 28 percent in 2009 and runs a deficit of $1.75 trillion, or 12.7 percent of GDP. That is four times the largest deficit of George W. Bush and twice as large a share of the economy as any deficit run since World War II.

Add that 28 percent of GDP spent by the U.S. government to the 12 percent spent by states, counties and cities, and government will consume 40 percent of the economy in 2009.

We are not “headed down the road to socialism.” We are there.

Since the budget was released, word has come that the U.S. economy did not shrink by 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter, but 6.2 percent. All the assumptions in Mr. Obama’s budget about growth in 2009 and 2010 need to be revised downward, and the deficits revised upward.

Look for the deficit for 2009 to cross $2 trillion.

Who abroad is going to lend us the trillions to finance our deficits without demanding higher interest rates on the U.S. bonds they are being asked to hold? And if we must revert to the printing press to create the money, what happens to the dollar?

As Americans save only a pittance and have lost — in the value of homes, stocks, bonds and other assets — $15 trillion to $20 trillion since 2007, how can the people provide the feds with the needed money?

In his speech to Congress, Mr. Obama promised new investments in energy, education and health care. Every kid is going to get a college degree. We’re going to find a cure for cancer.

Who is going to pay for all this?

The top 2 percent, the filthy rich who got all those Bush tax breaks, say Democrats. But the top 5 percent of income earners already pay 60 percent of U.S. income taxes, while the bottom 40 percent pays nothing.

Those paying a federal tax rate of 35 percent will see it rise to near 40 percent and will lose a fifth of the value of their deductions for taxes, mortgage interest and charitable contributions.

Yet, two-thirds of small businesses are taxed at the same rate as individuals. Consider what this means to the owner of a restaurant and bar in Los Angeles open from noon to midnight, where a husband and wife each put in 80 hours a week.

At year’s end, the couple finds they have actually made a profit of $500,000 that they can take home in salary.

What is the Obama-Schwarzenegger tax take on that salary?

Their U.S. tax rate will have hit 39.6 percent.

Their California income tax will have hit 9.55 percent.

Medicare payroll taxes on the proprietor as both employer and salaried employee will be $14,500. Social Security payroll taxes for the proprietor as both employer and employee will be $13,243.

In short, U.S. and state income and payroll taxes will consume half of all the pair earned for some 8,000 hours of work.

From that ravaged salary they must pay a state sales tax of 8.25 percent, gas taxes for the 50-mile commute, and tens of thousands in property taxes on both their restaurant and home. And, after being pilloried by politicians for having feasted in the Bush era, they are now told the tax deduction they get for contributing to the church is to be cut 20 percent, while millions of Obama voters, who paid no U.S. income tax at all, will be getting a tax cut — i.e., a fat little check — in April.

Any wonder native-born Californians are fleeing the Golden Land?

Markets are not infallible. But the stock market has long been a “lead indicator” of where the economy will be six months from now. What are the markets, the collective decisions of millions of investors, saying?

Having fallen every month since Mr. Obama’s election, with January and February the worst two months in history, they are telling us the stimulus package will not work, that Tim Geithner is clueless about how to save the banks, that the Obama budget portends disaster for the republic.

The president says he is gearing up for a fight on his budget.

Good. Let’s give him one.

Share on Facebook

Share This

First, Harry Reid said they would vote on the porkulus bill this past Monday. Then he said they would vote on it Friday evening. He rescheduled the vote for Sunday afternoon and now we are told to expect a vote this coming Tuesday. It probably goes without saying, but I am going to say for the sheer satisfaction of saying it: Sen. Reid DOES NOT HAVE THE VOTES TO PASS THIS STINKER!!!

I am not predicting the bill won’t pass, but in my opinion, all of you who have emailed and called your Senators have given them the necessary political support to cut at least $100 billion of pork from this bill.

Hopefully the Pubbies will now be emboldened to insist on front loaded tax cuts to keep this country’s purchasing power where it belongs. In your checkbook!

~~John Cronin~~

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=adnIDRZKZQJw&refer=us

By: Brian Faler

Feb. 7 (Bloomberg) – The U.S. Senate is slated to vote early next week on an economic stimulus package totaling at least $780 billion that President Barack Obama said is needed to prevent the economy from sinking into a deeper recession.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, scheduled a key procedural vote for 5:30 p.m. Washington time on Feb. 9 after a dispute over the measure’s size was resolved yesterday. If the procedural hurdle is cleared, Reid said a vote on the bill would take place on Feb. 10.

If it passes, lawmakers will attempt to reconcile the Senate bill with an $819 billion stimulus bill the House approved last month. Democratic congressional leaders are pushing to deliver a final bill to Obama by the end of next week.

The agreement reached on the Senate bill’s size by Democrats and three Republicans prompted Reid to express confidence the Senate would approve its bill. “We are passing a bold and responsible plan that will help our economy get back on its feet, put people to work and put more money in their pockets,” he said.

Throughout this week, a bipartisan group of more than a dozen lawmakers has been demanding cuts to the bill as its size grew to more than $900 billion. Senator Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat who led the push to reduce that total, said after yesterday’s accord was reached that he and other lawmakers worked “line by line, dollar by dollar” to cut more than $100 billion.

‘Jobs, Jobs, Jobs’

The plan they produced is “about jobs, jobs, jobs,” he said.

The $780 billion compromise plan that Nelson and the other lawmakers announced didn’t include the cost of other changes that had been made to the bill earlier this week. Those amendments included tax cuts aimed at boosting the housing and auto industries.

Republicans estimated the bill’s cost would total about $827 billion. And the Senate’s top Republican, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said most of his colleagues continue to oppose the bill because, in their view, it emphasizes government spending over tax cuts.

“The president said originally he had hoped to get 80 votes” in the Senate, said McConnell. “It appears that the way this has developed, there will be some bipartisan support but not a lot.”
Earlier yesterday, the Labor Department reported an increase in unemployment in the U.S. and Obama stepped up his call for Congress to complete work on a stimulus plan. The jobless rate rose to 7.6 percent last month from 7.2 percent in December, the Labor Department reported, adding urgency to the congressional talks. Payrolls fell by 598,000, the biggest monthly decline since December 1974.

Delay ‘Inexcusable’

Obama said it would be “inexcusable” for Congress to get “bogged down in distraction, delay or politics as usual” over the stimulus legislation “while millions of Americans are being put out of work.”

Also before the Senate agreement was announced, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, said she was “very much opposed to the cuts that are being proposed in the Senate.” These included reductions in spending for education.

The Senate agreement pared from the bill $20 billion for school construction, $2 billion to expand broadband access in rural areas, $3.5 billion to make federal buildings more energy efficient and $200 million for NASA. It also reduced a proposed subsidy that would allow the jobless to buy health insurance through their former employers.

Tax Cuts Dropped

Tax cuts worth $18 billion were dropped from the measure. The accord also reduced the income cap for workers who would benefit from Obama’s $1,000 payroll tax credit, to $140,000 for married couples and $70,000 for singles from $150,000 and $75,000, respectively.

“This compromise greatly improves the bill,” said Senator Susan Collins, a Maine Republican. Republican Senators Olympia Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania announced they also would support the package.

Democrats, who control the Senate with 58 votes, need support from at least two Republicans to gain the 60 votes needed in Monday’s procedural vote and bring the bill up for approval.

During debate on the bill yesterday, lawmakers approved on a voice vote an amendment to fix the troubled HOPE for Homeowners program. That initiative was created last year to let homeowners struggling with subprime loans refinance into fixed-rate loans backed by the government.

Terms Too Tough

The program, designed to help 400,000 borrowers, has refinanced just two dozen mortgages since October because, lawmakers said, the terms to enroll were made too tough. The amendment would cut fees for borrowers and provide additional incentives for loan providers. It would also require the Treasury Department to devote at least $50 billion in the Troubled Asset Relief Program to stem housing foreclosures.

Another amendment adopted on a voice vote would require financial institutions that take money from the TARP program to repay the cash portion of bonuses topping $100,000 that were paid to employees for work last year. “This amendment makes it clear that it’s not enough to say that the excessive bonuses are wrong — it requires that companies pay those bonuses back to our taxpayers,” said Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat.

Lawmakers also approved an amendment imposing tougher restrictions than the House imposed on how money in the stimulus bill could be spent. The House measure bars stimulus funding from going to casinos, aquariums, zoos, golf courses and swimming pools. The Senate amendment also would bar the money from going to museums, arts centers, theaters, highway beautification projects, stadiums and parks.

Share on Facebook

Share This

From liberal CNN

(CNN) — These are extraordinary times, and like a lot of Republicans I believe that a well-crafted stimulus plan is needed to put people back to work. But the Obama spending bill would stimulate the government, not the economy.

We’re on an economic tightrope. The package that passed the House is a huge increase in the amount of government borrowing. And we’ve borrowed so much already that if we add too much more debt, or spend foolishly, we could invite an even bigger crisis.

We could precipitate a worldwide crisis of confidence in America, leading to a run on the dollar or hyperinflation that wipes out family savings and devastates the middle class.

It’s still early in the administration of President Obama. Like everyone who loves this country, I want him to adopt the correct course and then to succeed. He still has a chance to step in and insist on spending discipline among the members of his own party.

It’s his job to set priorities. I hope for America’s sake that he knows that a chief executive can’t vote “present.” He has to say yes to some things and no to a lot of others.

As someone who spent a career in the private sector, I’d like to see a stimulus package that respects the productivity and genius of the American people. And experience shows us what it should look like.

First, there are two ways you can put money into the economy, by spending more or by taxing less. But if it’s stimulus you want, taxing less works best. That’s why permanent tax cuts should be the centerpiece of the economic stimulus.

Second, any new spending must be strictly limited to projects that are essential. How do we define essential? Well, a good rule is that the projects we fund in a stimulus should be legitimate government priorities that would have been carried out in the future anyway, and are simply being moved up to create those jobs now.

As we take out nonessential projects, we should focus on funding the real needs of government that will have immediate impact. And what better place to begin than repairing and replacing military equipment that was damaged or destroyed in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan?

Third, sending out rebate checks to citizens and businesses is not a tax cut. The media bought this line so far, but they’ve got it wrong. Checks in the mail are refunds, not tax cuts. We tried rebate checks in 2008 and they did virtually nothing to jump-start the economy. Disposable income went up, but consumption hardly moved.

Businesses aren’t stupid. They’re not going to invest in equipment and new hires for a one-time, short-term blip. What’s needed are permanent rate cuts on individuals and businesses.

Fourth, if we’re going to tax less and spend more to get the economy moving, then we have to make another commitment as well. As soon as this economy recovers, we have to regain control over the federal budget, and above all, over entitlement spending for programs such as Social Security and Medicare. This is more important than most people are willing to admit.

There is a real danger that with trillions of additional borrowing — from the budget deficit and from the stimulus — world investors will begin to fear that our dollars won’t be worth much in the future. It is essential that we demonstrate our commitment to maintaining the value of the dollar. That means showing the world that we will put a stop to runaway spending and borrowing.

Fifth, we must begin to recover from the enormous losses in the capital investment pool. And the surest, most obvious way to get that done is to send a clear signal that there will be no tax increases on investment and capital gains. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts should be extended permanently, or at least temporarily.

And finally, let’s exercise restraint in the size of the stimulus package. Last year, with the economy already faltering, I proposed a stimulus of $233 billion. The Washington Post said: “Romney’s plan is way too big.” So what critique will the media have for the size of the Obama package?

In the final analysis, we know that only the private sector — entrepreneurs and businesses large and small — can create the millions of jobs our country needs. The invisible hand of the market always moves faster and better than the heavy hand of government.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Mitt Romney.

Share on Facebook

Share This

I am posting this excerpt, not to give specific investment advice, but as a FYI only. If you are not thoroughly versed in bond market investing and interest rate behaviors, please don’t get involved in this market. This information is meant to alert you to the fact that many respected market participants believe that the next bubble to burst will be the Treasury bond market.

~~John Cronin~~

http://online.barrons.com/article/SB123094029415750267.html?mod=b_hpp_barrons_most_viewed_day

The bubble in Treasuries looks ready to pop, sending prices on government debt sharply lower. But just about every other corner of the bond market beckons — and could provide competitive returns with stocks, even if the equity markets have a strong 2009.

THE BIGGEST INVESTMENT BUBBLE TODAY may involve one of the safest asset classes: U.S. Treasuries. Yields have plunged to some of the lowest levels since the 1940s as investors, fearful of a sustained global economic downturn and potential deflation, have rushed to purchase government-issued debt. The market also has been supported by comments from the Federal Reserve that it, too, may buy long-term Treasuries. - As a result, the benchmark 10-year Treasury note yields just 2.40%, down from 3.85% as recently as mid-November. The 30-year T-bond stands at 2.82%, and three-month Treasury bills were sold last week for a yield of just 0.05%. - Many investors argue it’s dangerous to buy Treasuries with such low yields. While a holder can expect to get repaid in full at maturity, the price of longer-term Treasuries could fall sharply in the interim if yields rise. The 30-year T-bond, for instance, would drop 25% in price if its yield rose to 4.35%, where it stood as recently as Nov. 13. The bear market may have begun Wednesday, when prices of 30-year Treasuries fell 3%. They lost another 3% Friday. - ”

Get out of Treasuries. They are very, very expensive,” Mohamed El-Erian, chief investment officer of Pacific Investment Management Co., warned recently. Pimco runs the country’s largest bond fund, Pimco Total Return (ticker: PTTPX). - Treasuries offer little or no margin of safety if the economy unexpectedly strengthens in 2009, or the dollar weakens significantly, or inflation shows signs of reaccelerating. Yields on 30-year Treasuries easily could top 4% by year end.

Share on Facebook

Share This

http://www.rncdebate.org/index.php
Here is the question that I submitted for consideration for the RNC’s debate. This question falls mainly within the economic sphere, but, I believe it’s political ramifications are huge and they need to be addressed successfully going forward, or the effects on the middle class will be devastating and the effects on the poor will be catastrophic.

The historic precedent I am using to base my opinion on is the post WW I inflation in Germany.

~~John Cronin~~

Welcome to ATR’s RNCDebate.org website.

What political response has the RNC made to address the potentially inflationary effects of the massive growth in the money supply we have seen as a result of the Treasury Dept. and the Federal Reserve’s efforts to stimulate the economy in the wake of the bursting of the credit bubble?
John Cronin | PERMALINK | January 03, 2009 • 7:32PM | Q#: 436 | Vote TOTAL: 0

Share on Facebook

Share This

When a newly elected politician prepares to head to Washington, that free spending den of iniquity, I always hold my breath, half way waiting to get sold out, but still hoping against hope that THIS TIME IT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT. In the case of Jason Chaffetz, so far so good.

Rep. elect Chaffetz’ first co-sponsored bill will require a balanced federal budget. The cynical among us might say that this is just window dressing and has no chance of passing. Probably it won’t pass. It will get some of us thinking that maybe the problem with the enormous deficits we have been running is that Congress is genetically incapable of disciplining itself and unless we come up with a way of handcuffing these people to some form of frugality, we will continue to bleed red ink at a time we can ill afford it.

Kudos to Rep. Chaffetz, keep up the good work!

~~John Cronin~~

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705273910,00.html

After he is sworn into office next week, Rep.-elect Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said among the first things he will do is co-sponsor a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget.

“Fiscal discipline is my No. 1 priority. Without it, we are not able to do anything else,” Chaffetz said Monday.

He added, “The state constitution in Utah requires a balanced budget. This works well for Utah and will work well for our country.”

Conservatives for years have pushed such a constitutional amendment — and often introduce it on the first day that Congress convenes. But they have been unable to get it through Congress. Such amendments must be passed by two-thirds of both the House and Senate and then be ratified by legislatures in three-fourths of the states.

“Federal government spending is out of control. Washington obviously lacks the discipline to live within its means. We cannot be all things to all people. We are $10 trillion-plus in debt, and the number is growing every day,” Chaffetz said.

“This is unacceptable and unsustainable. I am committed to dramatically reduce the size and scope of the federal budget. We cannot continue to run this country by putting more debt on a credit card,” Chaffetz said.

Share on Facebook

Share This

From The New Republic.

Would Romney Be Doing Better?

The economy is collapsing and the GOP is stuck with a candidate who doesn’t know jack about economics. But what if Mitt Romney had won that hard-fought Florida primary and grabbed the nomination? Romney’s whole business career was about turning around distressed companies. Plus, he’s far less identified with George W. Bush than is McCain. And unlike McCain he might not have had to give up on Michigan, where his father was governor. (What state pray tell is McCain holding that Mitt couldn’t?)

I know there are plenty of strikes against the guy. But it’s an interesting counterfactual to consider–one that makes a lot more sense now that foreign policy has all but disappeared from the conversation.

P.S. Good point from commenter timteeter:

Or for that matter if McCain had sucked it up and made Romney his VP.

You might’ve had far less base enthusiasm at convention time, but delivering a strong economic message right now could’ve been far easier.

–Michael Crowley

Sorry for swearing here all, but, “NO SHIT SHERLOCK”. I think all of us here knew that a long freaking time ago.

Share on Facebook

Share This

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/us-stocks-tank-close-dow/story.aspx?guid={2067E099-1A1C-4B3B-B193-D2B70F65B7D4}

Dow industrials down over 5,500 points, or 39%, from year-ago peak

By Kate Gibson, MarketWatch

“There are only two things that will turn this market around: One is any sign that the credit markets are thawing out, and the second is we finally find a level at which stocks have finally become too cheap, sank 678.91 points, its third-largest point loss on record, to finish at 8,579.19, pushing the blue-chip index under the 9,000 level for the first time since August 2003.

One year to the day after climbing to its peak of 14,164.53, the Dow Jones Industrial Average sank 678.91 points, its third-largest point loss on record, to finish at 8,579.19, pushing the blue-chip index under the 9,000 level for the first time since August 2003.

The Dow’s close leaves it 5,585.34 points, or 39.4%, under its year-ago high.

All of the Dow’s 30 components closed under water.

“Indicators on the state of the credit markets have improved over the past two days but the improvement has not been enough to turn the tide on the equity market’s slide,” said Tony Crescenzi, chief bond market strategist at Miller Tabak & Co.

Volume on the New York Stock Exchange topped 2 billion, and declining stocks outran those advancing 10 to 1. On the Nasdaq, nearly 1.4 billion shares traded, with decliners surpassing advancers nearly 5 to 1.

In commodities trade, gold fell, with the contract for December delivery dropping $20 to end at $886.50 an ounce on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Share on Facebook

Share This

When I read the article written by the editorial staff of IBD and saw the multi-trillion dollar give aways proposed by Barack Obama it only took a couple of seconds to figure out what Obama is trying to do.

The last thing he wants is to do is start making direct cash payments to the offended parties. He wants to engineer a massive shift in wealth that will be administered by……you guessed it, him and his buddies in the federal bureaucracy. Thereby assuring relevancy and employment for the income redistributers for generations to come, assuming, of course, that they don’t wreck the American economy for themselves and everyone else in the process.

~~John Cronin~~

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=303088377885894

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY

Election ‘08: Barack Obama says Washington shouldn’t just offer apologies for slavery, but also “deeds.” Don’t worry, he says, he’s not talking about direct reparations. Relieved? Don’t be.

‘I consistently believe that when it comes to . . . reparations,” Obama recently told a gathering of minority journalists, “the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds.”

A few days later, he clarified his remarks, saying he’s not calling for direct cash payments to descendents of slaves, but rather indirect aid in the form of government programs that will “close the gap” between what he sees as white America and black America.

He says government should offer “universal” programs — such as universal health care, universal mortgage credits, college tuition, job training and even universal 401(k)s — that “disproportionately affect people of color.”

In other words, reparations by another name.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Back in those dark days of early 2007 when the MSM informed us that the nomination of Hillary Clinton was “inevitable” and that she had the “biggest and most professional campaign staff in U.S. history,” I used to say that the best defense against a Hillary Clinton presidency was an open microphone.

Ditto for a Barack Obama presidency as well. The Pubbies can’t make up anything better than what BO comes up with himself. Check out Obama’s latest wild hair as he positions himself to the left of Karl Marx.

~~John Cronin~~

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302222641317480

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY

Election ‘08:

A plan by Barack Obama to redistribute American wealth on a global level is moving forward in the Senate. It follows Marxist theology — from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

We are citizens of the world, Sen. Obama told thousands of nonvoting Germans during his recent tour of the Middle East and Europe. And if the Global Poverty Act (S. 2433) he has sponsored becomes law, which is almost certain if he wins in November, we’re also going to be taxpayers of the world.

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama has said. “That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.”

Oh, really? Who’s to say we can’t load up our SUV and head out in search of bacon double cheeseburgers at the mall? China? India? Bangladesh? The U.N.?

In an Obama White House, American sovereignty will become an endangered species. The Global Poverty Act is the first toe in the water of global socialism.

Share on Facebook

Share This

If Obama and McCain really believe what they are saying about the oil companies, they both need to re-open their studies of Economics 101. The quotes below show a stunning lack of understanding about both economics and human nature. Although I am not a big fan of McCain, Obama’s policies are radioactive. What he says in the quote below is just good old fashioned socialism and I don’t use that term lightly. He proposes to take money from Exxon, in other words from American citizens who own Exxon stock and then redistribute it to other Americans to use however they see fit. The implication, of course, is that if you will vote for me, I’ll confiscate someone else’s property and turn it over to you.

This attitude is flat out dangerous. Mr. Obama must be defeated at the polls this November. You might be tempted to think, well, I don’t own any Exxon stock, so his policy won’t adversely affect me. Don’t think for one moment that he will stop with Exxon. To politicians who think like Obama, the U.S. Treasury is their very own gigantic piggy bank and it exists only to fund whatever ideas emanate from their fevered brains.

~~John Cronin~~

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121383441884986739.html?mod=googlenews
_wsj

By KARL ROVE

June 19, 2008; Page A13

Barack Obama and John McCain are busy demonstrating that in close elections during tough economic times, candidates for president can be economically illiterate and irresponsibly populist.

In Raleigh, N.C., last week, Sen. Obama promised, “I’ll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we’ll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills.”

Set aside for a minute that Jimmy Carter passed a “windfall profits tax” to devastating effect, putting American oil companies at a competitive disadvantage to foreign competitors, virtually ending domestic energy exploration, and making the U.S. more dependent on foreign sources of oil and gas.

This past Thursday, Mr. McCain came close to advocating a form of industrial policy, saying, “I’m very angry, frankly, at the oil companies not only because of the obscene profits they’ve made, but their failure to invest in alternate energy.”

Share on Facebook

Share This

More good news on the common sense in energy policy front. Two Republicans have changed their minds about drilling in ANWR.

~~John Cronin~~

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=298251904169099

By INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, June 13, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Oil: Exxon Mobil is selling its gas stations because there’s no money in it. Meanwhile, two GOP congressmen do what John McCain should do — change their position on drilling in ANWR.

We already drill in Alaska. More than 15 billion barrels of oil have been sent down the Alaska pipeline from Prudhoe Bay, just 60 miles west of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, over the last three decades, much more than the six months’ supply predicted by critics.

As Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman notes, the development “footprint” would be minimal: “ANWR, in its totality, is about the size of South Carolina, and the area where we believe the hydrocarbons are located is about the size of Delaware, not to mention the exploration site would be no larger than about the size of (Boston’s) Logan International Airport.”

As for the “pristine” wilderness, the tiny portion of ANWR where drilling would occur is what hell would look like if it ever froze over. Winter on the coastal plain lasts for nine months. Total darkness reigns for 58 days. The temperature drops to 70 degrees below zero without the wind chill. Your spit freezes before it hits the ground.

Unfortunately, GOP nominee John McCain’s energy policy has been, well, inconsistent. He opposes drilling in ANWR because he considers it a historical treasure like the Grand Canyon.

Two House Republicans previously opposed to drilling in ANWR, Reps. Jim Walsh of New York and Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, announced Thursday that they’d now support drilling there. Some would call it flip-flopping. We’d call it coming to your senses.

Share on Facebook

Share This

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=297990974123443

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, June 10, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Energy:

America was saved Tuesday from a Democratic Congress determined to do more damage to our economy and raise oil prices still higher. Energy taxes and eco-extremism make Democrats the real oil gougers.

The most absurd provision in the thoroughly ridiculous energy package offered by Senate Democrats this week was to make price gouging on oil and gas a federal crime, punishable by a fine of $5 million if an energy emergency has been declared by the president at the time of such price fixing.

The DNC needs to make a remedial class on Economics 101 a pre-requisite for all freshmen Democratic Senators. One key economic concept that must be hammered home in this class is: “IF DEMAND REMAINS CONSTANT AND SUPPLY INCREASES, THE PRICE OF A COMMODITY WILL DECLINE.”

Oh, but why spoil the fun of being a camera-loving demagogue with silly old supply and demand!

~~John Cronin~~

Killing the geese that provide our economy with black gold is no answer to high energy prices. Developing more of our own energy is vital not just for relief at the pump, but for our national security in the global war on terror. At least one party in Congress gets it.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Share on Facebook

Share This