Kevin Gutzman is an idiot....
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:57 AM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > ROTFLMAO! > > Regard$, > --MJ > > "Republicans commonly complain that President Obama and his supporters > blame President Bush II for much of what is wrong in contemporary America. > This complaint's chief weakness is that Bush II is responsible for much > that's wrong in contemporary America. My chief complaint with President > Obama is that in reappointing Bernanke, rattling sabers over Syria, pushing > immigration amnesty, continuing the Drug War, legislating via signing > statements, spending prodigally, pushing through Obamacare, etc., he has > built on the foreign-policy, constitutional, and spending legacies of Bush > II." -- Kevin Gutzman > > > > > > > The Obama Watch > > Light at the End of the Tunnel > > The passing of the Age of Obama. > > By Peter Ferrara – 5.7.14 > > Conservatives need to wake up and start thinking past the rapidly passing > age of Obama. Increasingly likely every day is that voters this November > will remove Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader. By electing a new > Republican Senate majority, the voters will also render Barack Obama a lame > duck, one of the lamest in history, as he will have no prayer of getting > any of his legislative proposals —” increasingly recognized as hard left — > through Congress. (Despite his early national rhetoric, Obama doesn’t do > bipartisanship.) > > That new Republican Senate majority will also be a new check and balance > on Obama’s appointment of federal judges, reversing the effect of the > Reid rule change eliminating Republican judicial filibusters. That is > especially crucial given that the five remaining Reagan/Bush appointees on > the Court constitute the slimmest of majorities, with a couple of > occasionally weak sisters among them. If just one of these five is replaced > by another Elena Kagan or Sonia Sotomayor, the resulting shift from a > Reagan majority on the Court to an Obama one would mean a longer-term Obama > transformation of America. > > Given the long-term cycles of American political history, Obama’s second > midterm this year should be even worse for Democrats than the disastrous > Obama first midterm in 2010. And the polls are bearing out that possibility. > > The latest is a Pew/USA Today poll finding that 47 percent favor the > Republican candidate for Congress in their district or state, while 43 > percent favor the Democrat. That is a sharp turnaround from last October, > when Democrats held a 6 point lead in the same generic midterm preference > poll, 49 percent to 43 percent. The new Pew poll also finds a 16 point GOP > lead among independent voters. > > Moreover, the Pew poll finds that “65% would like to see the next > President offer different policies and programs from the Obama > Administration while 30 percent want Obama’s successor to offer similar > policies,†as reported by Jason Riley in the May 5 Wall Street Journal. > > In an April 27 Washington Post/ABC News poll, President Obama’s approval > rating was down to an all-time low of 41 percent. That poll featured an 11 > point Democratic advantage in the sample, which indicates further weakness > in that Obama support, especially as compared to the 2010 midterm turnout > rather than the 2012 turnout. > > For context, in April 2010, President Obama’s job approval in that > Washington Post/ABC News poll was 54 percent. In October 2010, just before > the voters administered their first midterm beating to Democrats, Obama’s > job approval was still 50 percent. > > Similarly, the April Gallup poll showed an Obama approval rating of 43 > percent, compared to an April 2010 Obama approval rating in that poll of 49 > percent, and an early November 2010 approval rating of 44 percent. The > latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll found Obama’s job approval at 44 > percent, compared to a May 11, 2010 approval of 50 percent, and an October > 30, 2010 approval of 45 percent. So consistently in all these polls, Obama > was doing better in 2010 just before that year’s Democrat blowout than he > is doing this year. > > The Washington Post/ABC News poll also found only 42 percent approval of > Obama’s handling of the economy, lower than the 44 percent in the October > 2010 poll. Most damning of all, 53 percent in the 2014 poll say it is more > important to have Republican congressional majorities to check Obama’s > policies, compared to 39 percent who believe it is more important to have > Democratic congressional majorities to support those policies. > > Bottom line in that poll, 45 percent say they plan to vote for Democratic > candidates for Congress this fall, compared to 44 percent who say they plan > to vote for Republican congressional candidates. But in October 2010, the > Washington Post/ABC News poll showed Democrats with a 5-point advantage on > that question, just before voters granted Republicans a 63-seat gain in the > House, and a 6 to 7 seat gain in the Senate (depending on how you count the > November 2010 affirmation of Scott Brown’s special election pickup of > Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat). > > These polls above, and state by state polls, are consistent with a > Republican pickup in this fall’s midterm of as many as 10 Senate seats, > establishing a new 55 to 45 Republican Senate majority, and 20 more House > seats. To maximize that victory, Republicans need to campaign on a > pro-growth platform of specific reforms to get America booming again as > under Reagan. But in designing those proposals, conservative and Republican > candidates, think tanks, publications, and policy intellectuals need to > think past what can possibly be compromised with President Obama, and take > their case for populist, pro-growth reforms directly to the people. > > That should begin with pro-growth tax reform. Directly contrary to the > Thomas Piketty/MSNBC socialists celebrating around massive, far left, > anti-growth increases in tax rates on the most productive, Republican tax > reform should involve sharp reductions in tax rates for everyone, in return > for eliminating tax loopholes for special interest, crony capitalists. > > A good model for that are the tax reform proposals developed by House > Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, already included in his budget > proposals approved by the full House. For personal, individual income > taxes, those proposals involve a 10 percent tax rate for annual incomes > below $100,000, and a 25 percent tax rate for incomes above that. For > corporate taxes, the top federal tax rate would be reduced to 25 percent as > well. > > Republicans should avoid the trap of promising that such reform would be > revenue neutral, shifting the debate to that rather than the impact on > growth. Their proposals should involve a net tax cut on a static revenue > estimating basis (not taking into account the pro-growth effects), and a > net revenue gain on a dynamic basis, considering the pro-growth effects. > > Another pro-growth measure would be to repeal and replace Obamacare with > the Patient Power health policy reforms proposed by free market health > policy expert John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy > Analysis in Dallas. Those reforms would assure universal health care for > all, with no individual mandate, no employer mandate, and a sharp net cut > in taxes, spending, and cost-increasing regulatory burdens. > > Those reforms would be based on a universal health insurance tax credit of > roughly $2,500 per person, $8,000 per family, that every citizen could use > to help purchase the private health insurance of their choice. For those > who nevertheless still don’t choose to buy coverage with the credit, the > unused funds would be sent in federal block grants to clinics and hospitals > that serve the indigent. For those who get too sick while uninsured, > perhaps with cancer or heart disease, to then buy private health insurance > for the first time, the tax credit can be used to buy coverage from a > state-based uninsurable risk pool, or from Medicaid, which would assure > coverage for pre-existing conditions in any event. Medicaid should also be > turned over to the states for further reform, with block grants as in the > enormously successful, 1996 welfare reforms. That has also been endorsed by > Ryan’s Republican budgets, and by the 2012 Romney/Ryan ticket. CBO > estimates that would save $1 to $2 trillion in the first 10 years alone. > > Some conservative analysts, and Republican health policy staffers, have > been too pessimistic about the prospects for such reforms. They have > succumbed to the fundamental mistake that under any market > repeal-and-replace plan like the Goodman Patient Power plan, tens of > millions of Americans will necessarily lose the health insurance plan they > now have under Obamacare, doing to them what Obamacare just did to millions > of Americans who were falsely told by President Obama that under Obamacare, > if they liked their health plan, they could keep it. > > The egregious error here is that since there is no mandate at all in the > Patient Power market alternative to Obamacare, not a single health policy > insurance plan in the entire country would be invalidated by repeal and > replacement of Obamacare by the Patient Power market plan. Under that > market plan, each individual chooses the health plan he will buy with the > universal health insurance tax credit. The federal government does not > specify what health plan anyone has to buy. So the Patient Power market > reforms would not require the cancellation or invalidation, of any health > insurance plans. Anyone who likes the health plan he has under Obamacare > can simply use the tax credit to help pay for that one. The exact number of > health insurance plans in the entire country invalidated if Obamacare is > repealed and replaced by Goodman’s Patient Power market plan would be > precisely 0.00, not 35 million as some analysts have misled their more > credulous readers to believe. > > With no employer mandate in the Patient Power plan, the effects of > Obamacare in destroying jobs and full time employment are eliminated. With > no individual mandate and no guaranteed issue or community rating > regulation, the primary effects of Obamacare in increasing health costs are > eliminated as well. The elimination of increased taxes and spending under > Obamacare would be powerfully pro-growth as well. > > Other important pro-growth reforms for Republicans to support would > include a federal balanced budget amendment, fundamental reform of the Fed > and monetary policy, possibly including a restored link to gold and other > precious metals to at least guide monetary policy, comprehensive welfare > reform based on work for the able bodied instead of guaranteed handouts, > and personal savings, investment. and insurance accounts for Social > Security and Medicare (instead of suicidal cuts in those highly sensitive > programs). > > Such reforms would involve a dramatic reduction in government spending and > taxes over a generation, and restore booming, world leading, traditional > American economic growth and prosperity, meaning millions of more jobs, > higher wages and incomes for working families, and more real equality as a > result. > > The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization > responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training > aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your > contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor > receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes. > > > Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved. > > Source URL: http://spectator.org/articles/59065/light-end-tunnel > >  > > > __._,_.___ > > > Visit Your > Group<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmcmFrNDNrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEzOTk2NzE3NjA-> > New > Members<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/members/all;_ylc=X3oDMTJnc2p0aHI4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2bWJycwRzdGltZQMxMzk5NjcxNzYw>2 > • > > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
