One of the timeless joys of being a sports fan is complaining about the announcers. For example, my parents generation bitched about Howard Cosell. My generation - given the huge increase in television coverage of all sports - get to whine about dozens of sportscasters who get on our nerves for reasons big and small.
The reason I bring this up is there seems to be a theme amongst the analysts doing the tournament games for CBS. They all have a hissy-fit every time a player takes a "quick" shot. It's like they all were forced to watch Hoosiers Clockwork Orange-style and have unanimously embraced Coach Norman Dale's philosophy on passing the ball several times before taking a shot. Steve Kerr will exhort the team to "run their stuff" before taking a shot; Bill Raftery will chide any player who doesn't "show patience".
Call me...uh, what is the opposite of "old fashioned"?, but I don't accept this line of thinking. "Running your stuff" is best viewed as a means to an end; and what is that end? It's getting an open shot! If you have an open shot without "running your stuff", take the shot! At least that is my opinion.
Anyway, if the New Yorks Knicks GM happens to find this blog post, please feel free to request a resume when you look to permanently fill the head coaching vacancy created by the departure of Mike D'Antoni. I am willing to work weekends. You offer health insurance, right?
Monday, March 26, 2012
Friday, March 23, 2012
The rich pay absolutely positively no taxes - except for the taxes they do pay
Every time the topic of taxes comes up the liberals talk about how the rich aren't taxed enough and the conservatives counter with the 47% that pay no taxes as well as the following chart.
The chart shows the number of tax returns that have a positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) and their percentage of the overall income and taxes paid. The typical take away is that the top 1% only earn 16.90% of the wages yet they pay 36.70% of the taxes. This of course indicates that the super rich not only pay their fair share but they cover some of your share as well.
The problem I have with this table is that it uses AGI as its starting point. 23% of tax returns owe no federal taxes not because of extravagant loopholes and credits but due to standard deductions. In all of the debates over tax rates I have never heard the argument that the standard deduction is the problem. This probably stems from the fact that everyone who pays taxes receives the standard deduction. While the standard deduction does vary it is essentially fair across all income levels.
So if everyone takes advantage of the standard deduction and it is not one of the areas of concern regarding tax inequality then why would you use a data set that doesn't take the standard deduction into account?
If you use everyone with a positive return after standard deductions as your starting point instead of everyone with a positive return at the AGI it has a dramatic affect on the percentages.
Using this method the Top 1% ($450,000 and above) earn 31.65% of the income but only pay 21.83% of the taxes. Similarly the next category of the top 1-5% ($175,000 - $450,000) earn 18.46% of the income while paying only 14.29% of the taxes while the top 5-10% (125,000 - 175,000) earn 17.45% of the income and pay 12.96%. The bottom 50% ($50,000 and lower) on the other hand earn 9.49% of the income and pay 14.82% of the taxes. This leaves the remaining 40% ($50,000 - $160,000) earning 23% of the income and paying 36% of the taxes.
If looked at this way the data shows that the bottom 90% pay a far higher percentage of their income than the top 10%. Does this mean that liberals are right and the rich don't pay their fair share? Maybe. Maybe not. But the real point is that it all depends on how you look at it. It seems to me that starting at AGI gives you the biggest slant towards the rich while starting after the deductions gives the biggest slant towards the poor and middle class. In the end neither analysis proves anything by itself because there are multiple ways to analyze the same data set.
Unfortunately, all too often, our desire to be right trumps our desire to find the truth so we end up using one narrow interpretation simple because it supports our beliefs. This makes for good debates but terrible solutions.
The chart shows the number of tax returns that have a positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) and their percentage of the overall income and taxes paid. The typical take away is that the top 1% only earn 16.90% of the wages yet they pay 36.70% of the taxes. This of course indicates that the super rich not only pay their fair share but they cover some of your share as well.
The problem I have with this table is that it uses AGI as its starting point. 23% of tax returns owe no federal taxes not because of extravagant loopholes and credits but due to standard deductions. In all of the debates over tax rates I have never heard the argument that the standard deduction is the problem. This probably stems from the fact that everyone who pays taxes receives the standard deduction. While the standard deduction does vary it is essentially fair across all income levels.
So if everyone takes advantage of the standard deduction and it is not one of the areas of concern regarding tax inequality then why would you use a data set that doesn't take the standard deduction into account?
If you use everyone with a positive return after standard deductions as your starting point instead of everyone with a positive return at the AGI it has a dramatic affect on the percentages.
Using this method the Top 1% ($450,000 and above) earn 31.65% of the income but only pay 21.83% of the taxes. Similarly the next category of the top 1-5% ($175,000 - $450,000) earn 18.46% of the income while paying only 14.29% of the taxes while the top 5-10% (125,000 - 175,000) earn 17.45% of the income and pay 12.96%. The bottom 50% ($50,000 and lower) on the other hand earn 9.49% of the income and pay 14.82% of the taxes. This leaves the remaining 40% ($50,000 - $160,000) earning 23% of the income and paying 36% of the taxes.
If looked at this way the data shows that the bottom 90% pay a far higher percentage of their income than the top 10%. Does this mean that liberals are right and the rich don't pay their fair share? Maybe. Maybe not. But the real point is that it all depends on how you look at it. It seems to me that starting at AGI gives you the biggest slant towards the rich while starting after the deductions gives the biggest slant towards the poor and middle class. In the end neither analysis proves anything by itself because there are multiple ways to analyze the same data set.
Unfortunately, all too often, our desire to be right trumps our desire to find the truth so we end up using one narrow interpretation simple because it supports our beliefs. This makes for good debates but terrible solutions.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Breaking News: Politicians waste time and play politics
It has been suggested recently that the President was using the Sandra Fluke flap as a political tool. It has also been suggested that by choosing to use some of his personal time on a passion of his, college basketball, the President was wasting time that could have been better spent on more pressing issues. I tend to believe that both of these ideas are off base but never the less, they are out there because someone thinks they have merit.
With this in mind I recently read an op-ed piece that Tim Walberg penned for the Daily Telegraph in Adrian, MI to assure his constituents that he is working hard to defend them. One of the ways Representative Walberg is accomplishing this goal is by fighting tooth and nail to defeat the evil empire known as the EPA from implementing a new regulation that could adversely affect local farmers. To defend his constituents from this impending regulation Mr. Walberg voted for The Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act. You may ask yourself what EPA regulation does this Act prevent? Well there is no impending regulation from the EPA regarding farm dust. As a matter of fact more than a month before Tim Walberg voted for this Act, an EPA assistant administrator testified before the Energy and Commerce subcommittee that, as the government body in charge of coarse particle pollution, they were keeping existing EPA standards in place. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson later reaffirmed this decision by stating that the agency’s regulation of coarse particulate matter would be retained with no revisions
If the President taking an hour our two out of his day to fill out an NCAA bracket is a waste of time then what do you call writing, debating and voting on an Act that solves a problem that doesn't exist?
Of course just voting on the bill won't let all of Tim Walberg's constituents know about the important work he is doing in congress so his staff put together an op-ed to let everyone know about his accomplishment. So not only did Mr. Walberg vote for an Act that prevents the EPA from doing something they had no plans on doing, he is publicly bragging about it.
If the President making a private phone call to a US citizen is political grandstanding then what do you call writing an op-ed extolling your own virtues?
If the complaint is that politicians waste time on unnecessary endeavors and focus too much on getting reelected then I agree but acting like these problems only exist on one side of the aisle or only in the oval office is practically the definition of playing politics.
With this in mind I recently read an op-ed piece that Tim Walberg penned for the Daily Telegraph in Adrian, MI to assure his constituents that he is working hard to defend them. One of the ways Representative Walberg is accomplishing this goal is by fighting tooth and nail to defeat the evil empire known as the EPA from implementing a new regulation that could adversely affect local farmers. To defend his constituents from this impending regulation Mr. Walberg voted for The Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act. You may ask yourself what EPA regulation does this Act prevent? Well there is no impending regulation from the EPA regarding farm dust. As a matter of fact more than a month before Tim Walberg voted for this Act, an EPA assistant administrator testified before the Energy and Commerce subcommittee that, as the government body in charge of coarse particle pollution, they were keeping existing EPA standards in place. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson later reaffirmed this decision by stating that the agency’s regulation of coarse particulate matter would be retained with no revisions
If the President taking an hour our two out of his day to fill out an NCAA bracket is a waste of time then what do you call writing, debating and voting on an Act that solves a problem that doesn't exist?
Of course just voting on the bill won't let all of Tim Walberg's constituents know about the important work he is doing in congress so his staff put together an op-ed to let everyone know about his accomplishment. So not only did Mr. Walberg vote for an Act that prevents the EPA from doing something they had no plans on doing, he is publicly bragging about it.
If the President making a private phone call to a US citizen is political grandstanding then what do you call writing an op-ed extolling your own virtues?
If the complaint is that politicians waste time on unnecessary endeavors and focus too much on getting reelected then I agree but acting like these problems only exist on one side of the aisle or only in the oval office is practically the definition of playing politics.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Who is to blame for high gas prices
For the past few weeks it has become an obsession of the right to blame President Obama for increasing gas prices. They will point out that gas prices doubled since his inauguration while ignoring that prices were at a 6 year low due to a worldwide recession. They say the President wanted higher gas prices as part of some great environmentalist agenda then ignore his actually comments that never support this claim.
Back in 2008 when gas hit "record highs" it was Democrats blaming then President Bush for the high prices and Republicans giving the defense. Here are a few examples:
Cal Thomas - 11-22-08 - "The facts are...no President has the power to increase or lower gas prices. Those are market forces."
Neil Cavuto - 5-20-08 - "you got China and India slopping up all of that oil faster than we can these days and that that is the not so sinister response to what’s going on. Nothing to do with the President"
Bill O'Reilly - 4-23-08 - "Most American's are getting hammered by high gas prices. Yesterday oil hit a record high and politicians cannot do a thing about it."
Cheryl Casone - 7-1-08 - "You know at this point it really is tough for this President to be honest with you because he really doesn’t have any control what’s going to happen with the markets and the economy and with oil prices and supply and demand and gasoline it really is out of this President's hands"
Dr Dan Yergin - 7-18-08 - (before Senate Republicans and Democrats as part of a one day energy summit) the reason for high gas prices: speculation, the weak dollar, geopolitics or volatile world events, like Iran's nuclear ambitions, and a "shortage psychology."
Bill O'Reilly with Former VP of New York Mercantile Exchange, John D'Agostino - 4-29-08 - (O'Reilly)"OPEC sets the price for a barrel of oil. And they keep raising it and raising it and raising it. Dick Cheney went over there and tried to say, “Hey, give us a break.” They gave Cheney the middle digit. All right? So they can — they can charge whatever they want to charge, correct?" (D'Agostino)D: "Well, OPEC sets the supply for what they can produce. The price of oil is actually set in exchange at trades in New York and in London, as well."
Marianne Lavalle (US News & World Report) on Greta Van Susteren - 6-18-08 - "the energy economists in the government made and assessment just a few weeks ago and what they came up with was (drilling in Anwar) it would reduce the price of oil about $0.40 a barrel or maybe as much as $1.40 a barrel" (Van Susteren) "So what did that do to my gallon of gas?" (Lavalle) "Did not really change it much at all.”
Bill O'Reilly - 4-21-08 - "The next time you hear a politician say he or she will bring down oil prices understand that it’s complete BS."
Ben Lieberman (Energy Analyst Heritage Foundation) - 5-22-07 - "the biggest factor (in increasing gas prices) is the rise in the price of oil."
The reality is that these statements were accurate then and they are accurate now. Politicians have little to no affect on the price of gasoline. Blaming the President is a political move used by both sides to excite the foot soldiers. Unfortunately it works every time.
Back in 2008 when gas hit "record highs" it was Democrats blaming then President Bush for the high prices and Republicans giving the defense. Here are a few examples:
Cal Thomas - 11-22-08 - "The facts are...no President has the power to increase or lower gas prices. Those are market forces."
Neil Cavuto - 5-20-08 - "you got China and India slopping up all of that oil faster than we can these days and that that is the not so sinister response to what’s going on. Nothing to do with the President"
Bill O'Reilly - 4-23-08 - "Most American's are getting hammered by high gas prices. Yesterday oil hit a record high and politicians cannot do a thing about it."
Cheryl Casone - 7-1-08 - "You know at this point it really is tough for this President to be honest with you because he really doesn’t have any control what’s going to happen with the markets and the economy and with oil prices and supply and demand and gasoline it really is out of this President's hands"
Dr Dan Yergin - 7-18-08 - (before Senate Republicans and Democrats as part of a one day energy summit) the reason for high gas prices: speculation, the weak dollar, geopolitics or volatile world events, like Iran's nuclear ambitions, and a "shortage psychology."
Bill O'Reilly with Former VP of New York Mercantile Exchange, John D'Agostino - 4-29-08 - (O'Reilly)"OPEC sets the price for a barrel of oil. And they keep raising it and raising it and raising it. Dick Cheney went over there and tried to say, “Hey, give us a break.” They gave Cheney the middle digit. All right? So they can — they can charge whatever they want to charge, correct?" (D'Agostino)D: "Well, OPEC sets the supply for what they can produce. The price of oil is actually set in exchange at trades in New York and in London, as well."
Marianne Lavalle (US News & World Report) on Greta Van Susteren - 6-18-08 - "the energy economists in the government made and assessment just a few weeks ago and what they came up with was (drilling in Anwar) it would reduce the price of oil about $0.40 a barrel or maybe as much as $1.40 a barrel" (Van Susteren) "So what did that do to my gallon of gas?" (Lavalle) "Did not really change it much at all.”
Bill O'Reilly - 4-21-08 - "The next time you hear a politician say he or she will bring down oil prices understand that it’s complete BS."
Ben Lieberman (Energy Analyst Heritage Foundation) - 5-22-07 - "the biggest factor (in increasing gas prices) is the rise in the price of oil."
The reality is that these statements were accurate then and they are accurate now. Politicians have little to no affect on the price of gasoline. Blaming the President is a political move used by both sides to excite the foot soldiers. Unfortunately it works every time.
Tony Kornheiser is a Backslider
Just an hour or so ago, I mentioned in an award eligible blog post that yours truly and Elijah Moon have differences. I mean, what is with all the racist jokes he tells around the Furriners offices?!? It makes me uncomfortable.
Anyway, one thing we totally 100% agree on that Sam Bradford has been ridiculously overrated by the national media. I may focus on it in an absolutist way (Bradford sucks!!) while Elijah seemed somewhat more perturbed by it in a relative sense (Another "expert" has Bradford rated ahead of Matt Stafford! I call bullshit!!). I feel like we're both right.
As the 2011 season progressed, it did seem as if some in the national media did finally start to catch on. There were at least whispers that maybe he was overrated. In fact, an October 28, 2011 column by ESPN's Bill Simmons ranked Sam Bradford as the #29 QB in the league (sort of).
I thought things were going in the right direction. Then, yesterday, on PTI, Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon were having a discussion of the Redskins trade to move up to presumably draft Robert Griffin III with the #2 pick in 2012 draft. In expression some reservation about the trade, Tony Kornheiser said:
It would be interesting to get a poll of NFL GMs and HCs to see who they'd rather have: Sam Bradford or Josh Freeman? I'm not saying I think really highly of Freeman either - but I will say that I would take Freeman over Bradford.
And the really easy choice? Matthew Stafford over any of them.
Anyway, one thing we totally 100% agree on that Sam Bradford has been ridiculously overrated by the national media. I may focus on it in an absolutist way (Bradford sucks!!) while Elijah seemed somewhat more perturbed by it in a relative sense (Another "expert" has Bradford rated ahead of Matt Stafford! I call bullshit!!). I feel like we're both right.
As the 2011 season progressed, it did seem as if some in the national media did finally start to catch on. There were at least whispers that maybe he was overrated. In fact, an October 28, 2011 column by ESPN's Bill Simmons ranked Sam Bradford as the #29 QB in the league (sort of).
I thought things were going in the right direction. Then, yesterday, on PTI, Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon were having a discussion of the Redskins trade to move up to presumably draft Robert Griffin III with the #2 pick in 2012 draft. In expression some reservation about the trade, Tony Kornheiser said:
You look at that conference - the Big 12 - the past ten years, every team runs a spread, every quarterback throws for 80,000 yards, but only (Sam) Bradford so far looks real good. Josh Freeman? Colt McCoy? Ehh. Do you want Vince Young? Do you want Blaine Gabbert? So I don't know... we'll see.
It would be interesting to get a poll of NFL GMs and HCs to see who they'd rather have: Sam Bradford or Josh Freeman? I'm not saying I think really highly of Freeman either - but I will say that I would take Freeman over Bradford.
And the really easy choice? Matthew Stafford over any of them.
Most Insufferable Day Of The Year!
There are several key differences between myself and Elijah Moon. I like good music. He has chosen, oddly, to like bad music. Go figure. There are other differences too - but that one is key.
Another key difference is that while Elijah Moon really does not want to hear about your fantasy football team, I have that aversion about who you picked in your NCAA brackets.
So, here's my message to the world:
I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR "SLEEPERS"!!
They are total guesses. You know it. I know it. The American people know it.
If you get one or more right, it does not mean you had any great insight. It means you beat the odds. Period.
So, while the mandate on Detroit's leading sports talk radio station this morning, 97.1 The Ticket, was to call in and "give us your sleepers", I feel I must write a blog entry that warns anybody in the Furriners offices that tells me who their sleeper is today, I just might punch them in the face.
Another key difference is that while Elijah Moon really does not want to hear about your fantasy football team, I have that aversion about who you picked in your NCAA brackets.
So, here's my message to the world:
I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR "SLEEPERS"!!
They are total guesses. You know it. I know it. The American people know it.
If you get one or more right, it does not mean you had any great insight. It means you beat the odds. Period.
So, while the mandate on Detroit's leading sports talk radio station this morning, 97.1 The Ticket, was to call in and "give us your sleepers", I feel I must write a blog entry that warns anybody in the Furriners offices that tells me who their sleeper is today, I just might punch them in the face.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Rationalizing for Rush
There has been an ongoing conversation on this blog over the past week regarding Rush Limbaugh's "two words" with both sides agreeing that what he said was wrong. That is of course the last point at which they agree.
With that in mind I wanted to address a few items.
First, it should be noted that Rush didn't just say two unkind words about Sandra Fluke. He leveled over 20 personal attacks (jokes) on her and her family. One of the big things that those who are rationalizing the comments by Rush seem to be missing is that 99% of women have used birth control so when Rush calls Sandra Fluke a "slut" for using birth control that is covered under insurance, he is essentially calling every woman who uses birth control covered by insurance a "slut".
It is not breaking news that the fringe talking heads make inappropriate comments but when you pigeonhole an entire group you tend to see a backlash. Making this a liberal media issue also completely misses the point. Rush Limbaugh has the most listened to radio show in the US. Unfortunately for Rush and his supporters this means he is also the biggest target. His words are powerful and so are the reactions.
Consider Tiger Woods. Have other golfers cheated on their wives? Sure they have. But none of them will get the airtime for their indiscretions that Tiger did because none of them have the status that Tiger does not because the liberal media has it out for Tiger.
Also consider Ted Nugent. Back in 2007 he made the following statements about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton:
"Obama, he's a piece of sh**. I told him to suck on my machine gun. Hey Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bit**."
After these comments there was no apology from Ted Nugent or President Bush. There was no outcry from ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, or CNN. In fact they don't seem to have even covered it. Instead Ted is considered a "friend of the show" by Sean Hannity and was interviewed by Piers Morgan on CNN.
The point being Rush Limbaugh gets the biggest push back because he is the biggest bully on the playground. Going to the "liberal media" well every time a conservative hero puts their foot in their mouth only diminishes an already questionable paradigm.
The other thing that I find peculiar is how this debate has turned in to a criticism of the President. It has been suggested that calling Sandra Fluke was purely a political move since he did not take similar actions for insults by liberal talking heads. If the President was playing politics with this phone call he would have called a press conference to apologize. Instead he made a private call that became public. It should also be noted that Sandra Fluke was not just the target of Rush Limbaugh. She was also attacked by Patricia Heaton and others on Twitter, Facebook and blogs everywhere. When Bill Maher used inappropriate language to describe Sarah Palin it didn't start a tidalwave of personal attacks on Sarah Palin. The President called to apologize for everything that Sandra has been put through for deciding to give a voice to her side in front of congress not just because Rush Limbaugh's insults.
The media frenzy over this story started long before the President made his call and it is a perversion of the facts to suggest that a private call to a US citizen who testified before congress resulting in a litany of personal attacks could be viewed as political grandstanding. Ironically the one thing that really should be considered a purely political move is turning Rush Limbaugh's personal attacks into a critique on the President.
With that in mind I wanted to address a few items.
First, it should be noted that Rush didn't just say two unkind words about Sandra Fluke. He leveled over 20 personal attacks (jokes) on her and her family. One of the big things that those who are rationalizing the comments by Rush seem to be missing is that 99% of women have used birth control so when Rush calls Sandra Fluke a "slut" for using birth control that is covered under insurance, he is essentially calling every woman who uses birth control covered by insurance a "slut".
It is not breaking news that the fringe talking heads make inappropriate comments but when you pigeonhole an entire group you tend to see a backlash. Making this a liberal media issue also completely misses the point. Rush Limbaugh has the most listened to radio show in the US. Unfortunately for Rush and his supporters this means he is also the biggest target. His words are powerful and so are the reactions.
Consider Tiger Woods. Have other golfers cheated on their wives? Sure they have. But none of them will get the airtime for their indiscretions that Tiger did because none of them have the status that Tiger does not because the liberal media has it out for Tiger.
Also consider Ted Nugent. Back in 2007 he made the following statements about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton:
"Obama, he's a piece of sh**. I told him to suck on my machine gun. Hey Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bit**."
After these comments there was no apology from Ted Nugent or President Bush. There was no outcry from ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, or CNN. In fact they don't seem to have even covered it. Instead Ted is considered a "friend of the show" by Sean Hannity and was interviewed by Piers Morgan on CNN.
The point being Rush Limbaugh gets the biggest push back because he is the biggest bully on the playground. Going to the "liberal media" well every time a conservative hero puts their foot in their mouth only diminishes an already questionable paradigm.
The other thing that I find peculiar is how this debate has turned in to a criticism of the President. It has been suggested that calling Sandra Fluke was purely a political move since he did not take similar actions for insults by liberal talking heads. If the President was playing politics with this phone call he would have called a press conference to apologize. Instead he made a private call that became public. It should also be noted that Sandra Fluke was not just the target of Rush Limbaugh. She was also attacked by Patricia Heaton and others on Twitter, Facebook and blogs everywhere. When Bill Maher used inappropriate language to describe Sarah Palin it didn't start a tidalwave of personal attacks on Sarah Palin. The President called to apologize for everything that Sandra has been put through for deciding to give a voice to her side in front of congress not just because Rush Limbaugh's insults.
The media frenzy over this story started long before the President made his call and it is a perversion of the facts to suggest that a private call to a US citizen who testified before congress resulting in a litany of personal attacks could be viewed as political grandstanding. Ironically the one thing that really should be considered a purely political move is turning Rush Limbaugh's personal attacks into a critique on the President.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Santorum: Bringing us back from the brink.
The best thing about having Rick Santorum in the race for President is that he has finally helped focus the debate on the most pressing issue facing the country - moral values. After all, who better to set the moral compass of the US than politicians?
In an example of how Rick is leading us in the right direction he has taken to attacking President Obama on defunding abstinence only education stating:
"In fact, he (Obama) has required programs not to talk about marriage, not to talk about abstinence, if -- in order to get federal funds.""
While some may focus on the reality that none of this statement is factually accurate and point out that the Affordable Care Act, affectionately known as Obamacare, contains $110 million in grants for abstinence education, what is really important here is that Rick has us talking about the vital moral issues that are the ruin of this country.
With that being said if you still believe that being factually accurate is paramount to making good decisions regarding the values of this country there are plenty of facts that support Rick's beliefs.
For instance, Rick believes that Obama is a snob for suggesting everyone should attend college. Fact - A greater percentage of high school students are virgins than college students. Much like Obama's plan to take gun rights away this data proves that the President is trying to ruin America by forcing our young people into a culture rampant with dirty lusty sexy sex.
The good news is that another survey shows that the higher the IQ for a young person the lower the likelihood that they will have sex. So when Rick is elected President and mandates abstinence only education, the teaching of evolution, and grants for homeschooling we should see an immediate jump in the IQ of our students which will of course lead to less naughty business for the kids.
This same survey also shows that 0% of students pursuing a degree in Studio Arts at Wellesley College were virgins in contrast to 83% of Chemistry, and Mathematics students. Once Rick gets a hold of this information I assume he, like any good patriot, will demand an immediate end to all Studio Art programs in the US. Obviously Studio Art degrees are part of the larger socialist agenda being pushed by this President and must be stopped.
Thank God for Rick Santorum.
In an example of how Rick is leading us in the right direction he has taken to attacking President Obama on defunding abstinence only education stating:
"In fact, he (Obama) has required programs not to talk about marriage, not to talk about abstinence, if -- in order to get federal funds.""
While some may focus on the reality that none of this statement is factually accurate and point out that the Affordable Care Act, affectionately known as Obamacare, contains $110 million in grants for abstinence education, what is really important here is that Rick has us talking about the vital moral issues that are the ruin of this country.
With that being said if you still believe that being factually accurate is paramount to making good decisions regarding the values of this country there are plenty of facts that support Rick's beliefs.
For instance, Rick believes that Obama is a snob for suggesting everyone should attend college. Fact - A greater percentage of high school students are virgins than college students. Much like Obama's plan to take gun rights away this data proves that the President is trying to ruin America by forcing our young people into a culture rampant with dirty lusty sexy sex.
The good news is that another survey shows that the higher the IQ for a young person the lower the likelihood that they will have sex. So when Rick is elected President and mandates abstinence only education, the teaching of evolution, and grants for homeschooling we should see an immediate jump in the IQ of our students which will of course lead to less naughty business for the kids.
This same survey also shows that 0% of students pursuing a degree in Studio Arts at Wellesley College were virgins in contrast to 83% of Chemistry, and Mathematics students. Once Rick gets a hold of this information I assume he, like any good patriot, will demand an immediate end to all Studio Art programs in the US. Obviously Studio Art degrees are part of the larger socialist agenda being pushed by this President and must be stopped.
Thank God for Rick Santorum.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Outsourcing America at your expense
I wanted to follow up slightly on a post of mine from last week regarding infrastructure spending which there were a considerable number of good comments on.
As I mentioned previously the President is pushing infrastructure spending as part of his job creation plan and Republicans are balking at the idea because of the costs associated with infrastructure spending. The reason the President keeps coming back to infrastructure spending is because it has a good return on investment when compared with other actions the government can take. According to Moody's the Bush tax cuts return $0.29 per dollar spent while infrastructure has a return of $1.59 per dollar spent.
The conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, reported that Americans gained more than $788 billion of economic activity a year from transportation infrastructure while spending only $185 billion a year for that infrastructure.
It should also be noted that we are currently underspending on infrastructure and this under spending by federal and state governments thanks to a poor economy and the belt tightening that has come with it, is having unintended consequences.
For example Chicago is leasing out all of their parking meters to an investment group working through Morgan Stanley with a state owned investment arm of Abu Dhabi owning a significant share and possibly a majority stake. To make matters worse shortly after the sale the price for parking jumped by as much as 300 %. Additionally the city has had to pay millions of dollars for times when the parking meters were unusable. So while the Mayor gets to claim it's a great deal for the Chicago tax payers because they get an immediate influx of cash, the reality is that if the city had maintained control of the meters and just changed the rates they could have had a long term return much higher than their one time deal.
In Virginia, the city of Chesapeake considered closing a bridge because they couldn't afford to fix it or tear it down. In the end they sold the bridge to a private company who plans on nearly doubling the toll to pay for the fixes.
Perhaps the real problem here is that the government doesn't charge enough for their services. Take the US Postal Service for example. Data shows that shipping via USPS is significantly cheaper than using UPS or FedEx regardless of the package. But try and raise the cost of a stamp and people go nuts. Their first reaction is that postal employees or overpaid or this is just another government organization wasting money while completely ignoring the revenue side of things.
We used to take pride in our world leading infrastructure projects like the Hoover Dam and the Erie Canal but with today's obsession for austerity and keeping tax rates low we are not only losing our standing as a country with the greatest infrastructure in the world we are also losing out on the economic activity that this infrastructure provides.
The reality is that like it or not infrastructure spending is going to happen and if Americans aren't willing to pay for it with taxes then they will pay for it with tolls which will include a profit margin that the government doesn't. If we are lucky these profits will go to American companies but recent reports suggest other countries like China are interested in investing heavily in American infrastructure. Who would have thought that it would be the communist country making the best use of capitalism? And all at the expense of the American tax payer.
Monday, February 27, 2012
The blame game
For years now I've heard the complaints that President Obama blames President Bush for everything. Perhaps Bush is to blame for all of our problems or perhaps he isn't, but if blaming the President for all that is wrong with the world is one of your pet peeves then you should pay close attention to the 2012 Presidential race rhetoric.
Like when Mitt Romney blamed Obama for:
The poor economy
The super committee failure.
Issues with the deficit talks.
The US credit downgrade.
GM layoffs.
Or like when Rick Santorum blamed Obama for:
High gas prices.
Bombings in Afghanistan.
High unemployment
Declining marriage rates.
Increased number of people on welfare.
Or like when Mitch McConnell blamed Obama for:
Congressional gridlock.
The BP oil spill.
Or like when Eric Cantor blamed Obama for:
The Occupy Wall Street protests.
Slow job growth.
So will anyone be surprised if any of the Republican candidates for President beats Obama and then spends their first three years blaming all of their failures on the former President?
The reality is that Americans love to blame everyone else for their problems. Unfortunately the only thing placing blame is good for is raising campaign funds not fixing problems.
Like when Mitt Romney blamed Obama for:
The poor economy
The super committee failure.
Issues with the deficit talks.
The US credit downgrade.
GM layoffs.
Or like when Rick Santorum blamed Obama for:
High gas prices.
Bombings in Afghanistan.
High unemployment
Declining marriage rates.
Increased number of people on welfare.
Or like when Mitch McConnell blamed Obama for:
Congressional gridlock.
The BP oil spill.
Or like when Eric Cantor blamed Obama for:
The Occupy Wall Street protests.
Slow job growth.
So will anyone be surprised if any of the Republican candidates for President beats Obama and then spends their first three years blaming all of their failures on the former President?
The reality is that Americans love to blame everyone else for their problems. Unfortunately the only thing placing blame is good for is raising campaign funds not fixing problems.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
We don't have a tax problem?
It may just be the upcoming elections or they may actually believe it but among conservatives there is an oft used phrase which goes something like this: "we don't have a tax problem, we have a spending problem."
While our government may be spending more than it needs to, it is also true that tax rates are at or near historic lows. What tax rate is just right? Maybe the tax rates under Reagan were the ideal tax rates for growth and job creation. If that is the case then our current rates would be problematic.
Regardless, there are certainly other issues with our current tax system that should be considered a "tax problem". First, it should be noted that included in the 47% of American's that "pay no taxes" are 1.5% of millionaires, 2% of Americans making between $200,000 and $1 million, and 3.5% of Americans making between $100,000 and $200,000.
Second, as the graph below from this year's Economic Report of the President shows, our tax system allows for many of the "rich" to pay lower taxes than some of the middle class.
This rhetoric about not having a tax problem is perpetuated by people like Mitt Romney who hides behind that fallacy that he is a job creator while spending his own money to secure the tax loopholes that allow him to pay a tax rate similar to that of the average American.
If we could close all of the tax loopholes and level the playing field then we might not have a tax problem anymore but when some of the poorest American's pay higher rates than some of the richest Americans, I don't know what else you can call it.
While our government may be spending more than it needs to, it is also true that tax rates are at or near historic lows. What tax rate is just right? Maybe the tax rates under Reagan were the ideal tax rates for growth and job creation. If that is the case then our current rates would be problematic.
Regardless, there are certainly other issues with our current tax system that should be considered a "tax problem". First, it should be noted that included in the 47% of American's that "pay no taxes" are 1.5% of millionaires, 2% of Americans making between $200,000 and $1 million, and 3.5% of Americans making between $100,000 and $200,000.
Second, as the graph below from this year's Economic Report of the President shows, our tax system allows for many of the "rich" to pay lower taxes than some of the middle class.
This rhetoric about not having a tax problem is perpetuated by people like Mitt Romney who hides behind that fallacy that he is a job creator while spending his own money to secure the tax loopholes that allow him to pay a tax rate similar to that of the average American.
If we could close all of the tax loopholes and level the playing field then we might not have a tax problem anymore but when some of the poorest American's pay higher rates than some of the richest Americans, I don't know what else you can call it.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
The infrastructure spending that ruled the world
Late last year when the President introduced his jobs bill Republican legislators killed it because they were not interested in increasing taxes or adding to the national debt. Additionally they stood by their long held belief by Republicans that the government can't create jobs.
At the same time we have a group of people who are very concerned about China and their recent ascent to the worlds number 2 economy. Some even believe that China will soon own the US.
The irony is that the recent surge in the Chinese economy is in large part thanks to the increased spending on infrastructure projects which also happens to be one of President Obama's key components to creating jobs.
It should also be noted that various estimates have China amassing a large national debt (China 89% of GDP - US 93% of GDP) to continue investing in infrastructure projects.
If you really think governments can't create jobs and increasing the national debt to create jobs will ruin the country then there is absolutely no reason to fear the current growth of China.
If, on the other hand, you believe China will soon take over the US then it must also be true that the government can create jobs and that adding to the national debt to create those jobs is a smart move.
But why let reality get in the way of some good old jingoistic rhetoric.
At the same time we have a group of people who are very concerned about China and their recent ascent to the worlds number 2 economy. Some even believe that China will soon own the US.
The irony is that the recent surge in the Chinese economy is in large part thanks to the increased spending on infrastructure projects which also happens to be one of President Obama's key components to creating jobs.
It should also be noted that various estimates have China amassing a large national debt (China 89% of GDP - US 93% of GDP) to continue investing in infrastructure projects.
If you really think governments can't create jobs and increasing the national debt to create jobs will ruin the country then there is absolutely no reason to fear the current growth of China.
If, on the other hand, you believe China will soon take over the US then it must also be true that the government can create jobs and that adding to the national debt to create those jobs is a smart move.
But why let reality get in the way of some good old jingoistic rhetoric.
Monday, February 20, 2012
To Paraphrase Voltaire
Voltaire is credited with the quote:
If God did not exist, it would necessary to invent him.
Well, if YouTube did not exist, it would be necessary to create it so people could see this video. Enjoy!
If God did not exist, it would necessary to invent him.
Well, if YouTube did not exist, it would be necessary to create it so people could see this video. Enjoy!
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Tax climate not related to jobs
In recent days there has been a lot of talk and back patting by Governor Snyder and the media about Michigan's ascent in the Tax Foundation's rankings of State Business Tax Climate. The only real increase was in the area of Corporate Income Tax where Michigan moved from the 49th best state in the nation to 7th after the changes that the Governor implemented last year. What I don't understand is why this ranking is generating such excitement.
Like any ranking the methods used to determine the order are certainly debatable but it should be noted that the Tax Foundation is a conservative leaning organization with recent board of director members including the following group:
Koch Industries Dir. of Federal Affairs, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Americans for Prosperity
Citizens for a Sound Economy; Director of OMB under Pres. Regan
Exxon Mobil, VP Tax
Mobil, VP Tax
Chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers
American Action Forum; chief economic adviser to Presidential candidate John McCain in 2008
Skadden, Arps; senior economic adviser to the Bush-Cheney campaign and formerly Assistant Secretary of Treasury for Tax Policy under Pres. Bush
While just being conservative leaning or having a board of directors who are inclined to glorify low corporate tax rates doesn't mean that their data is inaccurate or that their rankings are wrong but it certainly is worth questioning if the method for ranking states might rely too heavily on the Corporate tax component over areas like Sales tax, Income tax, Property tax, and Unemployment Insurance tax.
Having said that these rankings are really only important if they show some correlation to unemployment or job creation and unfortunately for the Tax Foundation and Governor Snyder there is no correlation. Below are graphs showing the rankings on the Tax Climate index and the unemployment levels and job creation for the corresponding state.
The reality is there is no more correlation between Unemployment and the Tax Foundation rankings than Unemployment and what letter of the alphabet a states name starts with. Conversely, a study by the Kauffman Foundation last year found that there is a correlation between the age of a business and job creation. Unfortunately the Corporate tax breaks that the governor implemented benefit large old companies more than small new businesses.
Perhaps hollow accomplishments are the goal of Governor Snyder. I imagine they are good for his reelection. But I'm guessing the residents of Michigan would value jobs over corporate sponsored rankings.
So before we put together a ticker tape parade extolling the virtues of Snyder’s policies we should ask the question - if having a good tax climate doesn't create jobs are lower unemployment then why celebrate the loss of revenue for the state which ironically cost the state jobs?
Like any ranking the methods used to determine the order are certainly debatable but it should be noted that the Tax Foundation is a conservative leaning organization with recent board of director members including the following group:
Koch Industries Dir. of Federal Affairs, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Americans for Prosperity
Citizens for a Sound Economy; Director of OMB under Pres. Regan
Exxon Mobil, VP Tax
Mobil, VP Tax
Chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers
American Action Forum; chief economic adviser to Presidential candidate John McCain in 2008
Skadden, Arps; senior economic adviser to the Bush-Cheney campaign and formerly Assistant Secretary of Treasury for Tax Policy under Pres. Bush
While just being conservative leaning or having a board of directors who are inclined to glorify low corporate tax rates doesn't mean that their data is inaccurate or that their rankings are wrong but it certainly is worth questioning if the method for ranking states might rely too heavily on the Corporate tax component over areas like Sales tax, Income tax, Property tax, and Unemployment Insurance tax.
Having said that these rankings are really only important if they show some correlation to unemployment or job creation and unfortunately for the Tax Foundation and Governor Snyder there is no correlation. Below are graphs showing the rankings on the Tax Climate index and the unemployment levels and job creation for the corresponding state.
The reality is there is no more correlation between Unemployment and the Tax Foundation rankings than Unemployment and what letter of the alphabet a states name starts with. Conversely, a study by the Kauffman Foundation last year found that there is a correlation between the age of a business and job creation. Unfortunately the Corporate tax breaks that the governor implemented benefit large old companies more than small new businesses.
Perhaps hollow accomplishments are the goal of Governor Snyder. I imagine they are good for his reelection. But I'm guessing the residents of Michigan would value jobs over corporate sponsored rankings.
So before we put together a ticker tape parade extolling the virtues of Snyder’s policies we should ask the question - if having a good tax climate doesn't create jobs are lower unemployment then why celebrate the loss of revenue for the state which ironically cost the state jobs?
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Politicans having it both ways
It seems to be a common belief among conservatives that President Obama is not doing enough to work with Republicans. While I disagree with this opinion it should be noted the Dick Armey the former House Majority Leader believes that Democrats are the "mortal enemy" of the Republicans. Additionally when the President was first elected Rush Limbaugh said he hopes the President fails and Mitch McConnell, one of the guys the President is supposed to be working with to solve America's problems, has made it his goal to make sure Barack Obama is a one term President. If this mentality is common place among Republican legislatures it should come as no surprise that Obama or the Democrats in Congress are having trouble finding common ground. Why would you want to work across the aisle with your mortal enemy or someone whose stated goal is to see you fail and make you a one term President?
The reality is we are not a country full of Nazi's and Communists. We are a country of patriots who have different methods for solving the same problem and continuing to use inflammatory rhetoric to whip of the base does not lead to good solutions.
Mitt Romney is also using this same tactic of having it both ways now that the Republican primaries have become a real race. To bolster his brand Romney has taken to bashing Washington DC. Romney is now calling his opponents and the President "insiders" and recently stated that the people he is running against are “those who have been compromised by the culture of Washington,” and whose “soul is corrupted by a Washington culture.”
What I don't get is why this line of thinking would resonate among conservatives. Why would a group who believes so whole heartedly in the idea of personal responsibility believe that anyone who works in Washington DC is powerless to resist the corrupting influence of working in federal government. Additionally if the corrupting powers are so unavoidable then why should anyone believe that Mitt Romney will be the first to remain pure?
I also wonder why Romney thinks that his experience of being a businessman is important in the task of creating jobs but the experience of working in the Federal Government is a bad thing when applying for the job of running the Federal Government. Either experience is valuable or it isn't. Mitt doesn't get to pick and choose.
In the end this policy of having your cake and eating it too maybe good for getting elected but it is bad for this country.
The reality is we are not a country full of Nazi's and Communists. We are a country of patriots who have different methods for solving the same problem and continuing to use inflammatory rhetoric to whip of the base does not lead to good solutions.
Mitt Romney is also using this same tactic of having it both ways now that the Republican primaries have become a real race. To bolster his brand Romney has taken to bashing Washington DC. Romney is now calling his opponents and the President "insiders" and recently stated that the people he is running against are “those who have been compromised by the culture of Washington,” and whose “soul is corrupted by a Washington culture.”
What I don't get is why this line of thinking would resonate among conservatives. Why would a group who believes so whole heartedly in the idea of personal responsibility believe that anyone who works in Washington DC is powerless to resist the corrupting influence of working in federal government. Additionally if the corrupting powers are so unavoidable then why should anyone believe that Mitt Romney will be the first to remain pure?
I also wonder why Romney thinks that his experience of being a businessman is important in the task of creating jobs but the experience of working in the Federal Government is a bad thing when applying for the job of running the Federal Government. Either experience is valuable or it isn't. Mitt doesn't get to pick and choose.
In the end this policy of having your cake and eating it too maybe good for getting elected but it is bad for this country.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
The Not For You Caucus
One thing about blogging is that you kind of have to do research to make sure you have some idea of what you're talking about. This is what explains all the time I've spent looking up Kelly Brook pictures on the internet; if I am going to make the claim that she is "the hottest woman on the planet", I kind of have to research it to make sure. (Was it confirmed? Not yet... more research is required.)
Anyway, some research I did yesterday indicated that while the House of Representatives always has a plethora of official caucuses (i.e. Congressional Black Caucus, Progressive Caucus, Tea Party Caucus, Liberty Caucus, etc.), the Senate actually only has one official caucus - the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control which was established by law in 1985.
That, arguably, ruined my clever idea for this post about the new caucuses established in light of a vote that took place on an amendment offered by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC). The (official) purpose of his amendment was:
To express the sense of the Senate that the Senate should pass a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution that limits the number of terms a Member of Congress may serve.
It failed. Miserably. It was voted down 75-24.
More interesting was the breakdown of who voted for it.
The most prominent group could be clumsily referred to as the Voters Will Not Remember This in 10 Years, Right? Caucus. These are the Senators who just won their seats in 2010. They are:
Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Scott Brown (R-MA)
Dean Heller (R-NV)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Joe Manchin ("D"-WV)
Jerry Moran (R-KS)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Rob Portman (R-OH)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Pat Toomey (R-PA)
So, of the 24 votes YAY votes, 13 were cast by essentially brand new members. This group clearly felt safe voting this way because they will not be proven to be hypocrites for a full 10 years (assuming a term limit of 2 terms). Most are counting on no one remembering this vote in 10 years when I would be willing to bet several of them will be seeking a third term. Of course, at least one of these won't have to worry about that. I'm looking at you, Scott Brown!
The second group is a grab bag of Republicans currently serving their second terms. I think all of which are popular in their home states and could easily seek third terms. Will they? We'll see. Will they be hypocrites if they do? I say yes, absolutely. Will they find a way to justify their actions? Well, they will make the argument and I suspect their constituents will believe them - because they want to believe them. Anyways, this group (which I will not snarkily name) is:
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
John Thune (R-SD)
David Vitter (R-LA) -- it's "The Hooker Guy"!
Watch these guys in the future. Graham's second term ends in 2014. Coburn, DeMint, Thune and Vitter all see their second term end in 2016. (It should be said that Tom Coburn has already indicated that he will not seek a third term. I will take him at his word.)
The most appalling new "Caucus" I have dubbed The Not For You Caucus. It is named in honor of the great contemporary life coach, Edward Vedder, who wrote:
If you hate something, do you do it too
This caucus of hypocrites consists of:
Jeff Sessions (R-AL) -- has been in the Senate since 1997.
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) -- has been in the Senate since 1993.
Chuck Grassley (R-IA) -- has been in the Senate since 1981.
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) -- has been in the Senate since 1977!
Wow! Grassley and Hatch in particular have some cajones saying they are in favor of term limits! In fact, Orrin Hatch has been in the Senate longer than Kelly Brook has been alive! In case you've forgotten, this is what Kelly Brook looks like:
Sorry, I have to end this post. I have important research to do.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Hoekstra Ad May Be offensive, But Is Certainly Inaccurate
You’ve probably seen or read about the ad that former Rep. Pete Hoekstra ran during the Super Bowl yesterday. Our own Mako Yamakura sure has gotten a burr in this saddle regarding this one – or, as Pete might say, a tack on his rickshaw seat.
Allow me to expand upon what Mako only slightly alluded to his second post regarding Mr. Hoekstra.
Whether the ad is or is not racist or offensive can be a matter of opinion.
What is a FACT is that Mr. Hoekstra’s premise is total rubbish. Check out “the chart that should accompany every discussion of deficits” and consider:
Do you know who voted for Medicare Part D (often described as a giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies)? And whether you believe that or not – it is an absolute fact that it was not paid for and has been projected by the CBO to add $558 billion to the deficit over the first ten years.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra
Do you know who did not vote for this deficit ballooning program?
Sen. Debbie Stabenow
Do you know who voted for the Bush Tax Cuts in 2001?
Pete Hoekstra.
Who voted against those tax cuts?
Debbie Stabenow
Who voted for the additional Bush Tax Cuts in 2003?
Pete Hoekstra
Who voted against the Tax Cuts in 2003?
Debbie Stabenow
Who voted for going to war in Iraq, ultimately costing approximately $1 trillion, thousands of American soldiers lives, as well as the untold sacrifices of American servicemen and women and their families?
Pete Hoekstra
Who voted against the authorization?
Debbie Stabenow
Who voted for TARP in 2008?
Pete Hoekstra
Who voted against TARP?
Debbie Stabenow!
So regardless of whether or not you think the ad is racist or offensive – do not miss the fact of Pete Hoekstra’s voting record as it pertains to spending/the deficit.
And, by the way, if you look at those votes for the Bush Tax Cuts in 2001 & 2003 as a positive and don’t consider it “spending”, then you must make sure you never say that The Stimulus signed by President Obama in early 2009 was ~$787B in wasteful spending because greater than 1/3 of that amount was tax cuts and, therefore, not “spending” under your definition.
So I guess I am saying that Hoekstra’s IS offensive. It’s offensive to anyone who cares about facts.
Allow me to expand upon what Mako only slightly alluded to his second post regarding Mr. Hoekstra.
Whether the ad is or is not racist or offensive can be a matter of opinion.
What is a FACT is that Mr. Hoekstra’s premise is total rubbish. Check out “the chart that should accompany every discussion of deficits” and consider:
Do you know who voted for Medicare Part D (often described as a giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies)? And whether you believe that or not – it is an absolute fact that it was not paid for and has been projected by the CBO to add $558 billion to the deficit over the first ten years.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra
Do you know who did not vote for this deficit ballooning program?
Sen. Debbie Stabenow
Do you know who voted for the Bush Tax Cuts in 2001?
Pete Hoekstra.
Who voted against those tax cuts?
Debbie Stabenow
Who voted for the additional Bush Tax Cuts in 2003?
Pete Hoekstra
Who voted against the Tax Cuts in 2003?
Debbie Stabenow
Who voted for going to war in Iraq, ultimately costing approximately $1 trillion, thousands of American soldiers lives, as well as the untold sacrifices of American servicemen and women and their families?
Pete Hoekstra
Who voted against the authorization?
Debbie Stabenow
Who voted for TARP in 2008?
Pete Hoekstra
Who voted against TARP?
Debbie Stabenow!
So regardless of whether or not you think the ad is racist or offensive – do not miss the fact of Pete Hoekstra’s voting record as it pertains to spending/the deficit.
And, by the way, if you look at those votes for the Bush Tax Cuts in 2001 & 2003 as a positive and don’t consider it “spending”, then you must make sure you never say that The Stimulus signed by President Obama in early 2009 was ~$787B in wasteful spending because greater than 1/3 of that amount was tax cuts and, therefore, not “spending” under your definition.
So I guess I am saying that Hoekstra’s IS offensive. It’s offensive to anyone who cares about facts.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Getting Her Beak Wet
Interesting story on Yahoo! News.
They are reporting that Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) is paying his daughter (& her band) several thousand dollars per gig to play at his campaign appearances. (For the record, her band sucks.)
And there you go. That is the way politicians like to legally funnel campaign money to themselves and their associates. It reminds me of this story as another notable example. A little less recent was this one.
Okay, so you may be thinking/wondering: You're right again, Derek Anderson Fan... but why did you return to blogging to notify us of something that happens all the time?
Good question.
The answer is that I could not let this lousy reporting by Yahoo! News stand without comment. Their article states:
Earlier this week, 80's one-hit wonder band "Survivor" sued Newt Gingrich over his use of the song "Eye of the Tiger" at his rallies.
One hit wonder?!?! Excuse me, sir, but check their Wikipedia page. In addition to the #1 hit "Eye of the Tiger", they had other chart hits like "Burning Heart" (#2), "The Search is Over" (#4), "High on You (#8), and others. You can't ignore history, sir! Just because, in retrospect, those songs really suck doesn't mean they were not hits.
And deep down, you have to admit, "Burning Heart" is pretty cool.
They are reporting that Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) is paying his daughter (& her band) several thousand dollars per gig to play at his campaign appearances. (For the record, her band sucks.)
And there you go. That is the way politicians like to legally funnel campaign money to themselves and their associates. It reminds me of this story as another notable example. A little less recent was this one.
Okay, so you may be thinking/wondering: You're right again, Derek Anderson Fan... but why did you return to blogging to notify us of something that happens all the time?
Good question.
The answer is that I could not let this lousy reporting by Yahoo! News stand without comment. Their article states:
Earlier this week, 80's one-hit wonder band "Survivor" sued Newt Gingrich over his use of the song "Eye of the Tiger" at his rallies.
One hit wonder?!?! Excuse me, sir, but check their Wikipedia page. In addition to the #1 hit "Eye of the Tiger", they had other chart hits like "Burning Heart" (#2), "The Search is Over" (#4), "High on You (#8), and others. You can't ignore history, sir! Just because, in retrospect, those songs really suck doesn't mean they were not hits.
And deep down, you have to admit, "Burning Heart" is pretty cool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
