The controversy that has abounded recently about the use of waterboarding as an “enhanced interrogation technique” for terrorist detainees is rather superfluous. Torture is different to different people, depending on your frame of reference or the “relative” circumstances. Maybe, you’re like the person who said about pornography, “I can’t describe it, but I know it when I see it”. Is that the way we see torture?
Torture is technically defined as something that causes intense suffering and/or pain particularly in the context of punishment or coercion. The legal difference between torture and other forms of ill treatment lies in the level of severity of pain or suffering imposed. In addition, torture requires the existence of a specific purpose behind the act, such as to obtain information. Methods of torture can be both physical and/or psychological and can have lasting effects.
It is really difficult to get your arms around the legal definition since courts in different countries don’t agree. For example, the European Convention of Human Rights (HCHR) definition, as interpreted by the Court of Strasbourg, considers torture as just inhuman and degrading treatment, which can mean no invasive action at all. That means, for example, all the detainees are being tortured because they are being held without trial. What about what the U.S. government did to Japanese citizens during WWII, or what police do to criminals as a matter of routine?
I think we make the mistake of getting bogged down in the definition, which is rather illusive, but should speak to the events or conditions that cause the use of torture and then make moral judgment from that.
John Locke, the 17th century English philosopher who greatly influenced our founders and is the source of our belief in the rule of law and the priority of legislative power, also believed there were situations where the rule of law did not apply. These are circumstances where the executive branch has the “power to act according to discretion, for the public good with prescription of the law, and sometimes even against it”. Remember when President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus in 1861 when Confederate sympathizers in Maryland burned bridges and attacked federal troops. The Supreme Court ruled that only Congress could do this and ordered the release of the criminals. Lincoln disobeyed the order, saying that the executive must sometimes do things it would not do in ordinary times. Does this change how you view Lincoln or his values?
I would say that 9/11 was extraordinary, even more so than the attack on Pearl Harbor. The question is: Was the nation in danger on 9/11? Was the President justified to imprison the terrorists in Guantanamo? Were the enhanced interrogations justified? Were they useful in protecting our country and its citizens?
Our beliefs and values are such that nothing stands in the way of protecting our freedom and the safety of our people. If the world thinks less of us because we waterboarded 3 high level terrorists in the process, so be it. Let’s not dress this issue up in some righteous quest to save our reputation in the world. If you ask me, doing less to protect our freedom and the lives of our citizens would actually harm our status on the world stage, give comfort to our enemies, and send the wrong message to our friends and allies.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
California, Here I Go!
That’s a take-off on a song that Al Jolson made famous in the 20’s called “California, Here I Come”. I was not around at that time but we’ve come a long way from then. So long in fact, that it now looks like we will be replaying that song in reverse. As I write this, Californians will be voting on six tax initiatives aimed at saving the State from utter bankruptcy.
It now appears that a reckoning may be here for the liberal tax and spend governance that has exemplified this State for many years. I predict that the voters, weary from this perennial gouging by public unions and special interests, will reject most of these initiatives to take more of their money. I hope this rejection will be the wake-up call needed to motivate real tax reform. Otherwise, the federal government will have another bailout on its hands, for surely California is too big to fail! It also poses an interesting question the Constitution never anticipated, “How does Washington take over a State?”
These are interesting times for many States that are now facing nearly a $100B budget deficit this year. Their “soak the rich” policies have created a mass exodus that leaves a vacuum of depleted jobs and a serious brain drain of entrepreneurs and small business. It illustrates that because people, capital, and businesses are mobile they will generally go to more tax-friendly locations when given the choice, particularly in these times.
The Great Tax Myth
The notion that increasing State taxes on the rich (>$200/yr.) provides more services, better schools, and improved infrastructure which in-turn attracts people and businesses is an utter myth. In fact, the opposite is true. The Wall Street Journal recently reported data from Richard Vedder of Ohio University which showed that from 1998-2007 more than 1,100 people a day moved from the highest income tax States such as California, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio and relocated mainly to nine tax haven States like Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Texas. Also, these no-income tax States created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth.
Take for example, New Jersey, a State where I lived from the age of 19-27. In the early 60’s the State had no income tax and no sales tax. It ran budget surpluses and attracted a variety of industries. Today its income and sales taxes are among the highest in the nation, yet it generates continuous deficits and its schools rank among the worst. We have seen similar trends over the years in California, where teacher’s unions have negotiated the highest salaries for classroom teachers, yet their schools have the second lowest test scores in the nation.
Let’s hope that politicians look at the Texas model which still has no State income tax and created more jobs in 2008 than all other 49 combined. It’s the economy, stupid, that generates revenues for services and growth, not the tax rate.
Good luck California, you’re beautiful but I don’t like your personality!
It now appears that a reckoning may be here for the liberal tax and spend governance that has exemplified this State for many years. I predict that the voters, weary from this perennial gouging by public unions and special interests, will reject most of these initiatives to take more of their money. I hope this rejection will be the wake-up call needed to motivate real tax reform. Otherwise, the federal government will have another bailout on its hands, for surely California is too big to fail! It also poses an interesting question the Constitution never anticipated, “How does Washington take over a State?”
These are interesting times for many States that are now facing nearly a $100B budget deficit this year. Their “soak the rich” policies have created a mass exodus that leaves a vacuum of depleted jobs and a serious brain drain of entrepreneurs and small business. It illustrates that because people, capital, and businesses are mobile they will generally go to more tax-friendly locations when given the choice, particularly in these times.
The Great Tax Myth
The notion that increasing State taxes on the rich (>$200/yr.) provides more services, better schools, and improved infrastructure which in-turn attracts people and businesses is an utter myth. In fact, the opposite is true. The Wall Street Journal recently reported data from Richard Vedder of Ohio University which showed that from 1998-2007 more than 1,100 people a day moved from the highest income tax States such as California, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio and relocated mainly to nine tax haven States like Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Texas. Also, these no-income tax States created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth.
Take for example, New Jersey, a State where I lived from the age of 19-27. In the early 60’s the State had no income tax and no sales tax. It ran budget surpluses and attracted a variety of industries. Today its income and sales taxes are among the highest in the nation, yet it generates continuous deficits and its schools rank among the worst. We have seen similar trends over the years in California, where teacher’s unions have negotiated the highest salaries for classroom teachers, yet their schools have the second lowest test scores in the nation.
Let’s hope that politicians look at the Texas model which still has no State income tax and created more jobs in 2008 than all other 49 combined. It’s the economy, stupid, that generates revenues for services and growth, not the tax rate.
Good luck California, you’re beautiful but I don’t like your personality!
Friday, May 8, 2009
GM's Bankruptcy - More of the Unfairness Doctrine
Developments in the bankruptcy negotiations for Chrysler and GM are excellent examples of this administration’s definition of the fairness doctrine, as they see it. It all depends on whose shoes you’re wearing. In my last post, the Chrysler bankruptcy showed how the secured lenders got swindled out of their contractual rights under bankruptcy law by government intervention. The GM bankruptcy illustrates the bias treatment of unsecured creditors due to government edict. Both these events violate the basic rules of a free market and the rule of law, which are the basic precepts of our founding fathers and our democracy.
In a conventional Chapter 11 bankruptcy, unsecured creditors are all in the same position and are usually treated by the court in a similar way, depending on their risk level and their importance to the company’s survival. In the GM case, there are three unsecured creditors in question, the bondholders (pension funds, hedge funds, investors) who bought these bonds from brokers, the United Auto Workers Union (UAW) who are owed money by GM as a result of the retiree health benefit trust set up by the company, and the U.S. Treasury who recently shelled out money in an effort to keep GM out of bankruptcy.
The bondholders hold the greatest debt at $27.2B, the union is next with $20B, followed by the U.S. Treasury with $16.2B. The government imposed solution is for the bondholders to get 10% of the ownership from converting their note to equity. That’s less than five cents on the dollar. The U.S. Treasury gets 50% of the stock and $8.1B in debt, as much as 87 cents per dollar, and the union gets 40% of the stock which covers one-half of their note and $10B more in cash over time. That’s worth approximately 76 cents on the dollar. The government and the UAW will own 90% and manage GM. How’s that for fairness? It looks like the private sector comes up short again when the government calls the shots and the guy with the largest claim gets short- changed in a rather disproportionate way.
Tell me, do you think that GM will ever get private investment capital in the future? Would private money readily come to TARP banks that are now being run by Treasury? When politics start to control business decisions, profits become less important. Witness the stagnation of business growth in the Socialist countries of the world. When growth slows the only option a Socialist government has is higher taxes. I’m afraid the cat’s out of the bag unless private interests go to the courts to block these two unfair and unjust bankruptcy charades. We better start standing up about this, because it’s our money that’s at stake. You can’t keep making something from nothing.
In a conventional Chapter 11 bankruptcy, unsecured creditors are all in the same position and are usually treated by the court in a similar way, depending on their risk level and their importance to the company’s survival. In the GM case, there are three unsecured creditors in question, the bondholders (pension funds, hedge funds, investors) who bought these bonds from brokers, the United Auto Workers Union (UAW) who are owed money by GM as a result of the retiree health benefit trust set up by the company, and the U.S. Treasury who recently shelled out money in an effort to keep GM out of bankruptcy.
The bondholders hold the greatest debt at $27.2B, the union is next with $20B, followed by the U.S. Treasury with $16.2B. The government imposed solution is for the bondholders to get 10% of the ownership from converting their note to equity. That’s less than five cents on the dollar. The U.S. Treasury gets 50% of the stock and $8.1B in debt, as much as 87 cents per dollar, and the union gets 40% of the stock which covers one-half of their note and $10B more in cash over time. That’s worth approximately 76 cents on the dollar. The government and the UAW will own 90% and manage GM. How’s that for fairness? It looks like the private sector comes up short again when the government calls the shots and the guy with the largest claim gets short- changed in a rather disproportionate way.
Tell me, do you think that GM will ever get private investment capital in the future? Would private money readily come to TARP banks that are now being run by Treasury? When politics start to control business decisions, profits become less important. Witness the stagnation of business growth in the Socialist countries of the world. When growth slows the only option a Socialist government has is higher taxes. I’m afraid the cat’s out of the bag unless private interests go to the courts to block these two unfair and unjust bankruptcy charades. We better start standing up about this, because it’s our money that’s at stake. You can’t keep making something from nothing.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Chrysler Bankruptcy - Saved by Fiat ?
We are now witnessing one of the most outlandish violations of business ethics in history, compliments of your U.S. government on the road to Socialism. Can you believe that our President has proclaimed that Chrysler now has a new lease on life because it’s going to be managed by Fiat? A company that makes some of the worst cars on the planet! In addition, the largest shareholder in this new company (55%) is going to be the United Auto Workers, who have single handedly caused this bankruptcy.
Fiat would actually take a 20% stake, plus warrant options, for nothing but an exchange of “know-how” – no cash, not one dollar! Fiat’s warrants will give it the opportunity to increase its ownership (equity) by up to 15 more percentage points, if it introduces efficient engines in the U.S. and rolls out a car that gets 40 miles to the gallon. The irony is that Chrysler already has this “know-how” today, but nobody wants to buy the car.
Here’s another joke. To make this deal happen, the U.S. Treasury (you and me) will contribute $3.3 billion to the plan: $2.0 billion to pay off Chrysler’s senior secured lenders at 33 cents on the dollar (wonder why they’re hacked off), and the rest of the money will be used to pay the company’s bills during the bankruptcy. The government also says that it is willing to “pitch-in” another $4.76 billion more in order to keep Chrysler running for several years. That’s on top of the $4.0 billion that the government lent Chrysler previously, a debt that will now be forgiven as part of this arrangement. With a deal like this, why do we need Fiat? Britney Spears could run this company pretty easily and continue her singing career as well!
Oh yes, what did the UAW give up to make this all happen? Well, they gave up part of their retiree health care fund which was owed $10.6 billion by Chrysler; instead they will only get $4.6 billion paid back with interest. Someone should tell them that most of us get Medicare when we retire, but of course the UAW can’t settle for that. Also, they gave up a cost-of living allowance, a Christmas bonus, two paid holidays, and they will forego vision and dental care benefits. What a pity; such a sacrifice. Maybe someone should also tell them that many workers are taking pay cuts today, but I guess that would be too much to ask. So, since the UAW has given up so much, let’s give them 55% of the company! Who negotiated this deal for the government, Barney Frank or Chris Dodd?
To top off this travesty, President Obama had a press conference to criticize the secured lenders who, according to bankruptcy law, have the contractual right to be paid off first on the $6.9 billion of secured debt they hold, but I guess Mr. Obama just rewrites the law as he goes along. Those “greedy vultures” who lent that money to Chrysler in good faith should be happy with 33 cents on the dollar. He ought to know, he won the election.
Fiat would actually take a 20% stake, plus warrant options, for nothing but an exchange of “know-how” – no cash, not one dollar! Fiat’s warrants will give it the opportunity to increase its ownership (equity) by up to 15 more percentage points, if it introduces efficient engines in the U.S. and rolls out a car that gets 40 miles to the gallon. The irony is that Chrysler already has this “know-how” today, but nobody wants to buy the car.
Here’s another joke. To make this deal happen, the U.S. Treasury (you and me) will contribute $3.3 billion to the plan: $2.0 billion to pay off Chrysler’s senior secured lenders at 33 cents on the dollar (wonder why they’re hacked off), and the rest of the money will be used to pay the company’s bills during the bankruptcy. The government also says that it is willing to “pitch-in” another $4.76 billion more in order to keep Chrysler running for several years. That’s on top of the $4.0 billion that the government lent Chrysler previously, a debt that will now be forgiven as part of this arrangement. With a deal like this, why do we need Fiat? Britney Spears could run this company pretty easily and continue her singing career as well!
Oh yes, what did the UAW give up to make this all happen? Well, they gave up part of their retiree health care fund which was owed $10.6 billion by Chrysler; instead they will only get $4.6 billion paid back with interest. Someone should tell them that most of us get Medicare when we retire, but of course the UAW can’t settle for that. Also, they gave up a cost-of living allowance, a Christmas bonus, two paid holidays, and they will forego vision and dental care benefits. What a pity; such a sacrifice. Maybe someone should also tell them that many workers are taking pay cuts today, but I guess that would be too much to ask. So, since the UAW has given up so much, let’s give them 55% of the company! Who negotiated this deal for the government, Barney Frank or Chris Dodd?
To top off this travesty, President Obama had a press conference to criticize the secured lenders who, according to bankruptcy law, have the contractual right to be paid off first on the $6.9 billion of secured debt they hold, but I guess Mr. Obama just rewrites the law as he goes along. Those “greedy vultures” who lent that money to Chrysler in good faith should be happy with 33 cents on the dollar. He ought to know, he won the election.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Confessions of a Reluctant Blogger
Writing a blog in these times is a rather unrewarding dilemma. There are so many things that provide grist for the mill, but in turn, so many outrageous happenings that one must be very selective so as not to waste time on senseless trivia. As a person trained in the sciences and used to dealing in facts and informed theory, it’s frustrating to be bombarded with biased media, politically leaning network commentary, and raging TV pundits that deal in innuendo and speculation instead of factual and informed debate.
The moniker of this blog is “Economic Conservatism” and if you have read my posts, I obviously have conservative political leanings, but I am not a practicing economist. However, I have tried to comment on a range of topics, other than politics and economics. I have attempted to base my comments on factual information not solely my political orientation. I don’t want this blog to be just another overly zealous right-wing “rag” (there are plenty on both sides) but I certainly intend to defend traditional values, prudent fiscal policies, a strong defense, limited government, and free markets. If you have spent some time in this corner, you can tell I do not support government intervention in the private sector or my life, nor do I believe in the so-called progressive agenda and secular views of the left wing of the Democratic Party.
Unfortunately, it appears to me that we now have a President and a Congress that is controlled by this wing of the Democratic Party and I am quite concerned about “change we can’t believe in”. We now have a President that controls the major banks in this country, can fire the CEO of the largest domestic auto manufacturer, can tell GM what cars they will make, makes a pact with one of our largest companies (GE) to push his “green” agenda at great expense to the U.S. taxpayers, and is planning the largest re-distribution of wealth in the history of this country regardless of the fiscal damage to future generations. I find it very difficult to maintain a balanced view when I am fearful for the future of this country under one party control. History has taught us the tragic lessons from this kind of autocratic behavior and socialist trends.
I intend to address these issues that have befallen us from the policies in the first 100 days of this current Administration. I want to give President Obama every chance to succeed in bettering the policies of the past and accelerating our recovery from this recession, however, he must be accountable for his actions and the American electorate will give him a report card in the 2010 mid-term election.
Mr. Obama sounded like a centrist as a candidate, but governs like a left wing ideologue, and has broken most of his promises to the electorate in his first 100 days. His popularity has been adversely impacted and the moderates in his own party are beginning to break ranks. He said he hardly knew about the “tea parties” that have erupted in recent months and his followers have dismissed them as racially motivated and from “rednecks” who don’t want to pay their taxes. Mr. Obama is playing with dynamite if he believes that these demonstrations are solely about taxes. If he doesn’t listen, he is going to be in for a big surprise come 2012.
I am reluctant to sound so negative about this new President and I solicit comments from some sensible Democrats out there that have facts to present that will allay my fears. However, if you’re a left wing zealot, stay away.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Can You Believe The Polls?
The other day I was watching MSNBC, the Obama network, and they reported on a New York Times/CBS News poll on President Obama’s ratings with the “public”. Given the results of the poll and when combined with the public response to the Obama tax plan, the rather dubious bills coming out of the Democratic Congress, the tea parties that are cropping up all over the country protesting the Obama tax plan, I was an immediate skeptic.
The poll results showed a rather unexplainable exuberance from the American people for Obama and is a vivid example of the media love affair with him, particularly NBC, MSNBC, CBS, and the New York Times. The poll showed that Obama’s approval rating hit a new high of 66% up from 64% the previous month. Is this significant; and was the press release from CBS or the Obama campaign? Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference.
According to former Democratic pollster Pat Caddell (who is no longer popular with his party) and a credible poll expert, “there is a problem with the way this poll was conducted”. Caddell says that the poll showed an extreme Democratic edge on party preference of 16 points. “No other poll has such an extreme partisan gap. It appears that the NY Times and CBS News manipulated the numbers until they came up with the desired results. In effect, they reduced the Republicans in the sample by 13% and increased the Democrats by 12% while the Independent voters were only changed by 2%”.
I also bet that you didn’t know that a Pew Research Poll was conducted just before the Times/CBS poll. It showed the new President in a different light. It stated that their poll showed “Barack Obama has the most polarized early job approval ratings of any President in four decades”. Did you read about that poll in the newspapers or did you hear about that on prime news and MSNBC?
I’m not saying that polls are not indicative of public opinion; however, I am saying that the way questions are phrased and selection of the demographic base, has a significant effect on the results. It appears to me that the Obama people and certain news outlets are very good at getting the result they want, in fact, they have even mastered it better than Bill Clinton’s people who were very good at it. Remember Begala and Carvelle?
I think that pollsters like Gallup, Zagby, Rasmussen, are credible and usually objective. However, when polls are sponsored by newspapers, TV networks, and politically leaning organizations, be careful of drawing conclusions. Obama is personally very popular, most newly elected Presidents are, but the media love affair with him is very evident and not necessarily constructive for the country. Our free media has for decades been a key element in providing objective analysis for the masses and the voice of the people in our democratic society. When it becomes a tool of the government, we become no different from the worse dictators or tolitarian state.
The poll results showed a rather unexplainable exuberance from the American people for Obama and is a vivid example of the media love affair with him, particularly NBC, MSNBC, CBS, and the New York Times. The poll showed that Obama’s approval rating hit a new high of 66% up from 64% the previous month. Is this significant; and was the press release from CBS or the Obama campaign? Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference.
According to former Democratic pollster Pat Caddell (who is no longer popular with his party) and a credible poll expert, “there is a problem with the way this poll was conducted”. Caddell says that the poll showed an extreme Democratic edge on party preference of 16 points. “No other poll has such an extreme partisan gap. It appears that the NY Times and CBS News manipulated the numbers until they came up with the desired results. In effect, they reduced the Republicans in the sample by 13% and increased the Democrats by 12% while the Independent voters were only changed by 2%”.
I also bet that you didn’t know that a Pew Research Poll was conducted just before the Times/CBS poll. It showed the new President in a different light. It stated that their poll showed “Barack Obama has the most polarized early job approval ratings of any President in four decades”. Did you read about that poll in the newspapers or did you hear about that on prime news and MSNBC?
I’m not saying that polls are not indicative of public opinion; however, I am saying that the way questions are phrased and selection of the demographic base, has a significant effect on the results. It appears to me that the Obama people and certain news outlets are very good at getting the result they want, in fact, they have even mastered it better than Bill Clinton’s people who were very good at it. Remember Begala and Carvelle?
I think that pollsters like Gallup, Zagby, Rasmussen, are credible and usually objective. However, when polls are sponsored by newspapers, TV networks, and politically leaning organizations, be careful of drawing conclusions. Obama is personally very popular, most newly elected Presidents are, but the media love affair with him is very evident and not necessarily constructive for the country. Our free media has for decades been a key element in providing objective analysis for the masses and the voice of the people in our democratic society. When it becomes a tool of the government, we become no different from the worse dictators or tolitarian state.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
The Estate Tax - Will It Ever Go Away?
If you were planning on dying next year in order to avoid the estate tax, forget it. Buried deep in President Obama’s new budget proposal to Congress in footnote 1 on page 127 is a note which reads, “The estate tax is maintained at its 2009 parameter”. So instead of falling to zero next year as scheduled under current law, that tax will remain at 45% with an exemption level of $3.5 million (or $7 million for a couple). In essence, this is a 100% increase in the estate tax next year from current law , even though President Obama’s chief economic advisor, Larry Summers, empathic when commenting on the proposed budget said, “Let’s be very clear: There are no, no tax increases this year. There are no, no tax increases next year”. Oh yes, there are Larry. The President’s budget calls for the largest increase in the death tax in U.S. history!
Obviously, the intent was that the death tax would go to zero in the tenth year of Bush’s first tax cut in 2001, and the political likelihood was that it would never return. The election of Barrack Obama eliminated that expectation. It doesn’t matter that the revenue generated by this tax is relatively insignificant or that most of the money in an estate is already taxed when it was earned, it’s all about the liberal ideology that believes taxing the wealthy 2% of American families that pay this tax is only “fair” because they are “rich” and we want to show our constituency that we are for “working” Americans.
The truth is that this tax is a farce and totally “unfair” because it is double taxation and ignores the fact that the longevity of most small businesses is motivated by the ability to pass on wealth to the next generation. This regressive tax makes it preferable to sell or liquidate your business rather than pass it on to your heirs who can’t afford to pay the tax and keep it going.
In fact, a recent study by one, Larry Summers, shows that between 41-66% of capital stock was transferred either by bequests at death or through trusts and lifetime gifts. Therefore, a higher the estate tax lessens the incentive to reinvest in family businesses. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that eliminating the death tax would increase small business investment by $1.6 trillion. This additional investment would create 1.5 million new jobs. That’s half the jobs President Obama said he hopes to gain from his $787 billion stimulus bill. It looks like we could have saved a lot of taxpayers’ money by just eliminating this most despised and unfair of all federal taxes.
President Obama, when are you going to stop being an ideologue and start using your common sense?
Obviously, the intent was that the death tax would go to zero in the tenth year of Bush’s first tax cut in 2001, and the political likelihood was that it would never return. The election of Barrack Obama eliminated that expectation. It doesn’t matter that the revenue generated by this tax is relatively insignificant or that most of the money in an estate is already taxed when it was earned, it’s all about the liberal ideology that believes taxing the wealthy 2% of American families that pay this tax is only “fair” because they are “rich” and we want to show our constituency that we are for “working” Americans.
The truth is that this tax is a farce and totally “unfair” because it is double taxation and ignores the fact that the longevity of most small businesses is motivated by the ability to pass on wealth to the next generation. This regressive tax makes it preferable to sell or liquidate your business rather than pass it on to your heirs who can’t afford to pay the tax and keep it going.
In fact, a recent study by one, Larry Summers, shows that between 41-66% of capital stock was transferred either by bequests at death or through trusts and lifetime gifts. Therefore, a higher the estate tax lessens the incentive to reinvest in family businesses. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that eliminating the death tax would increase small business investment by $1.6 trillion. This additional investment would create 1.5 million new jobs. That’s half the jobs President Obama said he hopes to gain from his $787 billion stimulus bill. It looks like we could have saved a lot of taxpayers’ money by just eliminating this most despised and unfair of all federal taxes.
President Obama, when are you going to stop being an ideologue and start using your common sense?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
