Following is an excerpt from a worthwhile article on whether the claim
of executive privilege applies in the present circumstance...
[T]he case that is most directly pertinent to Holder’s assertion of executive privilege isIn re Sealed Case (Espy), 121 F.3d 729 (D.C. Circuit 1997), which, along with Judicial Watch v. Department of Justice, 365 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2008), cites and relies upon Espy,
contains the most up to date judicial exposition of the doctrine of
executive privilege. Unbelievably, Holder’s letter never cites or
mentions the Espy case. If a first-year associate wrote a
memorandum for me in which he failed even to mention the most
significant case, I would fire him….
But Holder’s letter completely
fails to acknowledge what a weak reed the “deliberative process
privilege” is in the circumstances of this case. In Espy, the court said:
The
deliberative process privilege does not shield documents that simply
state or explain a decision the government has already made or protect
material that is purely factual….
The deliberative process privilege is a qualified privilege and can be overcome by a sufficient showing of need. … For
example, where there is reason to believe the documents sought may shed
light on government misconduct, ‘the privilege is routinely denied,’
on the grounds that shielding internal government deliberations in this
context does not serve ‘the public’s interest in honest, effective
government.’”
Full article here: Can Obama make an executive privilege claim stick?
Also, when you hear democrats claim that operation Fast & Furious started under Bush, consider this: On Fast & Furious, "Blame Bush" is a lie.
July 16, 2012
March 11, 2012
Gas Prices
In all the back and forth over high gas prices we've heard about global markets, supply and demand, unrest in the Mideast, falling value of the dollar, etc. If the article linked below is accurate, another major factor is our transportation and refining system for oil. If that's true, construction of the Keystone XL pipeline would, irrespective of other factors, put downward pressure on gas prices. On March 5, the crude oil coming out of the Canadian oil sands, called Western Canada Select, closed 40% lower than Brent crude, which is the benchmark price for oil in Europe.
Obama's obstinacy on Keystone is puzzling. He must know that high gas prices will hurt him politically. Yet today he personally lobbied Senate democrats to vote against a measure that would have increased the likelihood of building the pipeline. Equally puzzling is his insistence that getting rid of Big Oil "subsidies" is somehow part of a rational energy policy. If Big Oil was denied these "subsidies" (which in reality are sensible writeoffs that other companies get), what do you think would happen to the price of gas? He denies wanting gas prices to rise "in an election year" (based on past statements he's OK with such price increases otherwise), yet he is not willing to do anything that might ease upward pressure on these prices. He and Energy Secretary Chu and other democrats claim that increased supply, if it comes from the U.S., will not have an effect on gas prices. But apparently increased supply from elsewhere would be helpful, since they beg other countries, like Saudi Arabia, to ramp up production. I'm starting to think that the Holy Grail of green energy has rendered the administration incapable of rational thought.
The Story Behind U.S. Gas Price Pain
Obama's obstinacy on Keystone is puzzling. He must know that high gas prices will hurt him politically. Yet today he personally lobbied Senate democrats to vote against a measure that would have increased the likelihood of building the pipeline. Equally puzzling is his insistence that getting rid of Big Oil "subsidies" is somehow part of a rational energy policy. If Big Oil was denied these "subsidies" (which in reality are sensible writeoffs that other companies get), what do you think would happen to the price of gas? He denies wanting gas prices to rise "in an election year" (based on past statements he's OK with such price increases otherwise), yet he is not willing to do anything that might ease upward pressure on these prices. He and Energy Secretary Chu and other democrats claim that increased supply, if it comes from the U.S., will not have an effect on gas prices. But apparently increased supply from elsewhere would be helpful, since they beg other countries, like Saudi Arabia, to ramp up production. I'm starting to think that the Holy Grail of green energy has rendered the administration incapable of rational thought.
The Story Behind U.S. Gas Price Pain
March 1, 2012
What Should Be Illegal?
How difficult is it to open a lemonade stand? Should you be prosecuted for building on your own land after you have obtained approval from the local government? Why does it cost $1,000,000 to be a taxi driver in New York City? Should drugs be legal? Should prostitution be legal?
The video below is about 40 minutes long. If you're willing to take the time, it's worth a look.
The video below is about 40 minutes long. If you're willing to take the time, it's worth a look.
February 24, 2012
Soaking the Rich, Part II
As the following editorial from the Wall Street Journal points out, increasing the tax rate on dividends will not just punish the wealthy. Lots of other folks will be hurt. Does the administration care? Or does the Holy Grail of "fairness" blind them?
Obama's Dividend Assault
Obama's Dividend Assault
February 23, 2012
Soaking the Rich
Some people have very steep learning curves. Despite a mountain of evidence that high tax rates on the wealthy do not result in the anticipated revenues to government, Britain increased those rates to 50% a while back. Not surprisingly, Britain is discovering that trying to soak the rich doesn't work very well.
I suppose we could hope that Washington policy makers are paying attention. But they won't.
February 10, 2012
Senators Breaking the Law
Question: if a large group of members of Congress willfully break the law, shouldn't there be some sanctions for their behavior?
I am referring, of course, to the fact that the Senate has failed to pass a budget, which it is required by law to do, for over 1,000 days. Specifically, Senate Democrats refuse to pass a budget. Harry Reid and Chuck Shumer have already announced that they will continue to break the law by not passing a budget this year.
The only reason I can come up with for their willful, lawless behavior is that they don't want their fingerprints on any document that could come back and bite them in the ass, politically speaking. You don't get much more cowardly and cynical than that.
I am referring, of course, to the fact that the Senate has failed to pass a budget, which it is required by law to do, for over 1,000 days. Specifically, Senate Democrats refuse to pass a budget. Harry Reid and Chuck Shumer have already announced that they will continue to break the law by not passing a budget this year.
The only reason I can come up with for their willful, lawless behavior is that they don't want their fingerprints on any document that could come back and bite them in the ass, politically speaking. You don't get much more cowardly and cynical than that.
February 1, 2012
Truman, Obama, & Power
Some excerpts from the article linked below...
"The 1932 Democratic platform, largely written by the party’s 1924 nominee, John W. Davis, was a clear statement of conservative, Jeffersonian principles, but FDR abandoned this platform during his first hundred days in office. So radical were the changes that by 1935, conservatives — Democrats and Republicans alike — agreed with Davis when he wrote, “If the structure of this Government is to be preserved, the courts must do it.”
"By the late 1930s, he had earned the New Dealers’ enduring enmity, and he wore with pride their sobriquet, “Public Enemy Number One."
There is precedent for the Supreme Court ruling against the takeover by government of the private sector.
Obama's Seizure and Truman's
"The 1932 Democratic platform, largely written by the party’s 1924 nominee, John W. Davis, was a clear statement of conservative, Jeffersonian principles, but FDR abandoned this platform during his first hundred days in office. So radical were the changes that by 1935, conservatives — Democrats and Republicans alike — agreed with Davis when he wrote, “If the structure of this Government is to be preserved, the courts must do it.”
"By the late 1930s, he had earned the New Dealers’ enduring enmity, and he wore with pride their sobriquet, “Public Enemy Number One."
There is precedent for the Supreme Court ruling against the takeover by government of the private sector.
Obama's Seizure and Truman's
January 29, 2012
The Buffett Ruse
Following is an excerpt from a Wall Street Journal editorial. Full article linked below. I think a lot of the confusion could be cleared up if we went to a flat tax on everyone.
"The Buffett rule is rooted in the fairy tale that taxes on the wealthy are lower than on the middle class. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office notes that the effective income tax rate of the richest 1% is about 29.5% when including all federal taxes such as the distribution of corporate taxes, or about twice the 15.1% paid by middle-class families. (See "How Much the Rich Pay," January 23, 2012.)"
WSJ Editors: The Buffett Ruse
"The Buffett rule is rooted in the fairy tale that taxes on the wealthy are lower than on the middle class. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office notes that the effective income tax rate of the richest 1% is about 29.5% when including all federal taxes such as the distribution of corporate taxes, or about twice the 15.1% paid by middle-class families. (See "How Much the Rich Pay," January 23, 2012.)"
WSJ Editors: The Buffett Ruse
January 26, 2012
Romney's Goof
Mitt Romney missed a "teachable moment" when he released his tax returns the other day.
Predictably, critics on the left, and amazingly some on the right, like Gingrich, pounced on Romney's returns as proof that the wealthy don't pay their fair share. Or, as Gingrich put, being paid for "no work". As you all know, this is because Romney's income derives from capital gains on investments, which are taxed at 15%. And as we have heard before, how does it make sense that Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary? Egad! The unfairness of it all!
But a couple of points are worth noting. First, that income from capital gains has already been taxed at the corporate level. And as we all know, U.S. corporate tax rates are either the highest or second highest among developed countries in the world (depending on whether Japan has finally lowered their corporate tax rate, which I don't know). So, by the time Romney realizes a capital gain, the effective tax rate on that money can be as high as 45%.
Second, there is a reason that capital gains are taxed at lower rates. The economy benefits by having capital flowing, as opposed to being locked up. If we raised the cap gains rate to, say, 35% (the upper earned income rate), investors will be less likely to sell assets that trigger the tax. We have seen this scenario play out over and over again. When cap gain tax rates are low, people are more likely to sell assets and pay the tax. This not only keeps capital flowing through the economy, it increases revenue to the government. And as someone once said, you can't have capitalism without capital.
Why Romney didn't explain all of this is a mystery to me. My guess is that he's so paranoid about the class warfare strategy of the Democrats that he's like a deer in the headlights.
Predictably, critics on the left, and amazingly some on the right, like Gingrich, pounced on Romney's returns as proof that the wealthy don't pay their fair share. Or, as Gingrich put, being paid for "no work". As you all know, this is because Romney's income derives from capital gains on investments, which are taxed at 15%. And as we have heard before, how does it make sense that Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary? Egad! The unfairness of it all!
But a couple of points are worth noting. First, that income from capital gains has already been taxed at the corporate level. And as we all know, U.S. corporate tax rates are either the highest or second highest among developed countries in the world (depending on whether Japan has finally lowered their corporate tax rate, which I don't know). So, by the time Romney realizes a capital gain, the effective tax rate on that money can be as high as 45%.
Second, there is a reason that capital gains are taxed at lower rates. The economy benefits by having capital flowing, as opposed to being locked up. If we raised the cap gains rate to, say, 35% (the upper earned income rate), investors will be less likely to sell assets that trigger the tax. We have seen this scenario play out over and over again. When cap gain tax rates are low, people are more likely to sell assets and pay the tax. This not only keeps capital flowing through the economy, it increases revenue to the government. And as someone once said, you can't have capitalism without capital.
Why Romney didn't explain all of this is a mystery to me. My guess is that he's so paranoid about the class warfare strategy of the Democrats that he's like a deer in the headlights.
January 23, 2012
Is There a Limit on Federal Power?
Below is an excerpt from an article by George Will on the upcoming Supreme Court case on Obamacare...
"If there is no outer limit on Congress’s power to regulate behavior in the name of regulating interstate commerce, then the Framers’ design of a limited federal government is nullified. And if there is no outer limit on the capacity of this government to coerce the states, then federalism, which is integral to the Framers’ design, becomes evanescent."
Full article linked below. It's worth a read. As Will notes, it could be the most important USSC case since 1954.
George Will: A Supreme Obamacare Test
"If there is no outer limit on Congress’s power to regulate behavior in the name of regulating interstate commerce, then the Framers’ design of a limited federal government is nullified. And if there is no outer limit on the capacity of this government to coerce the states, then federalism, which is integral to the Framers’ design, becomes evanescent."
Full article linked below. It's worth a read. As Will notes, it could be the most important USSC case since 1954.
George Will: A Supreme Obamacare Test
January 21, 2012
Wesley Mouch Lives
This kind of stuff is straight out of Atlas Shrugged. If someone asked these Democrats whether a company or an individual will continue to produce once the marginal tax rate reaches 100%, how would they answer?
Democratic Party Economics: The "Reasonable Profits Board"
Democratic Party Economics: The "Reasonable Profits Board"
January 15, 2012
More Solyndras
In light of the fact that Mitt Romney is getting heat from both Republicans and Democrats for his time at Bain Capital, heat which is either steeped in ignorance or political gamesmanship or both, it is remarkable that the venture capitalism undertaken by the Obama administration, with taxpayer dollars, is not garnering much attention.
It is comforting to find out that CBS has at least one journalist who takes her job seriously.
Unreal: CBS News Identifies Eleven "New Solyndras"
It is comforting to find out that CBS has at least one journalist who takes her job seriously.
Unreal: CBS News Identifies Eleven "New Solyndras"
January 7, 2012
Emperor Obama
I am somewhat aghast at the latest example of Obama's imperiousness.
His "recess" appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau not only ignores the Constitution but Dodd-Frank as well, which created the CFPB. The Senate is not in recess. Granted, Republicans are gaveling the Senate into session every three days for the express purpose of preventing Obama from making these recess appointments, but this is a strategy that Democrats have employed in the past as well. It may be unseemly, but that's the way they do things in the dysfunctional world of Washington. The fact is that the Senate is not in recess, ergo, Obama cannot make a recess appointment. But he doesn't care. He will just do as he pleases, Constitution be damned.
Even if one were to forgive him this transgression, there is the problem of the language in Dodd-Frank. It specifically states that the director of the CFPB shall not assume authority until confirmed by the Senate. Perhaps it was an oversight by the staffers who wrote the bill, but the end result is that language forbids the use of a recess appointment, which by defintion is not confirmed by the Senate.
Obama is defending his action by proclaiming that he won't let Congress stand in the way of doing what he believes is right for American consumers. He neglected to mention that he won't let the Constitution, or the Act itself, stand in the way of what he wants. His ends apparently justify any means.
For anyone who may believe that George Bush conducted an imperious presidency, I have a question: Is it abhorrent when Bush does it but acceptable when Obama does it?
His "recess" appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau not only ignores the Constitution but Dodd-Frank as well, which created the CFPB. The Senate is not in recess. Granted, Republicans are gaveling the Senate into session every three days for the express purpose of preventing Obama from making these recess appointments, but this is a strategy that Democrats have employed in the past as well. It may be unseemly, but that's the way they do things in the dysfunctional world of Washington. The fact is that the Senate is not in recess, ergo, Obama cannot make a recess appointment. But he doesn't care. He will just do as he pleases, Constitution be damned.
Even if one were to forgive him this transgression, there is the problem of the language in Dodd-Frank. It specifically states that the director of the CFPB shall not assume authority until confirmed by the Senate. Perhaps it was an oversight by the staffers who wrote the bill, but the end result is that language forbids the use of a recess appointment, which by defintion is not confirmed by the Senate.
Obama is defending his action by proclaiming that he won't let Congress stand in the way of doing what he believes is right for American consumers. He neglected to mention that he won't let the Constitution, or the Act itself, stand in the way of what he wants. His ends apparently justify any means.
For anyone who may believe that George Bush conducted an imperious presidency, I have a question: Is it abhorrent when Bush does it but acceptable when Obama does it?
January 6, 2012
My Other Car is an Escalade
More good news for the Chevy Volt...
An interesting tidbit from this item is that the average income of Volt buyers is $170,000. In other words, we have wealthy folks being subsidized by taxpayers to buy these little firetraps, all so they can assuage their green consciences.
I just love it when government thinks it possesses greater wisdom than free markets.
Great news: GM to "call back" 8,000 Chevy Volts for "structural modifications" related to battery fires
An interesting tidbit from this item is that the average income of Volt buyers is $170,000. In other words, we have wealthy folks being subsidized by taxpayers to buy these little firetraps, all so they can assuage their green consciences.
I just love it when government thinks it possesses greater wisdom than free markets.
Great news: GM to "call back" 8,000 Chevy Volts for "structural modifications" related to battery fires
December 20, 2011
Medicare Reform
I have heard critics of the Ryan-Wyden plan claim that it will end Medicare "as we know it." Well, Medicare "as we know it" is going to end, whether the critics want it to end or not. It is only a question of when and how destructive the end will be.
I applaud this bipartisan effort to reform a program that will, left untouched, ruin the country. I will be curious to see how the administration reacts, whether it has the political courage to offer a rational alternative or will resort to demagoguery.
A Big Step
I applaud this bipartisan effort to reform a program that will, left untouched, ruin the country. I will be curious to see how the administration reacts, whether it has the political courage to offer a rational alternative or will resort to demagoguery.
A Big Step
December 19, 2011
Cracking Down on Warming Bloggers
In the wake of Climategate 2, the release of another 5,000 emails from the notorious East Anglia crew, the authorities are starting to play hard ball (see article linked below).
According to another source, the latest email dump has a twist--rather than just communiques between scientists on how to manipulate data, smear critics, and subvert peer review, this batch includes emails with government officials. No wonder these guys are getting desperate.
British Poice Raid Climategate Blogger's Home
According to another source, the latest email dump has a twist--rather than just communiques between scientists on how to manipulate data, smear critics, and subvert peer review, this batch includes emails with government officials. No wonder these guys are getting desperate.
British Poice Raid Climategate Blogger's Home
December 18, 2011
Infrastructure Spending
The article linked below sheds some much needed light on the alleged benefits of spending on infrastructure by the federal government.
Limited Mileage When Feds Spend
Limited Mileage When Feds Spend
December 14, 2011
Whither compromise?
For those who believe that compromise in Washington is the sine qua non of how politics should work, I have a question. What gives with Obama?
Obama wants to extend the payroll tax cut, and fund it with a surtax on millionaires. Republicans believe, correctly, that this is not a pro-growth economic policy. But, they are willing to go along with the extension if Obama will agree to move forward on the Keystone XL pipeline, and they propose to fund the tax cut in other ways. That sounds like compromise to me. But Obama has threatened a veto, and Harry Reid says he won't even allow such a proposal to come to a vote in the Senate. This is the same Harry Reid who thinks the concept that millionaires create jobs is as mythical as the unicorn, but I digress.
In other words, Republicans are saying let's compromise. Obama gets his payroll tax cut, and in return they ask for a project that will create jobs and allow the country to lessen its dependence on oil from the Mideast. Sounds like a pretty reasonable compromise to me.
It seems to me that Obama is now in the unenviable position of having to explain to the middle class, who he claims to champion, that he will not extend their payroll tax cut if it means creating more jobs and improving the nation's energy situation. Then again, he recently said that the payroll tax cut would create more jobs than the Keystone XL pipeline. Which means that, like Harry Reid, he is either astonishingly ignorant or couldn't care less whether his utterances have any connection to reality. He will have to rely heavily on his spin doctors and hope that the public is not paying attention.
Obama wants to extend the payroll tax cut, and fund it with a surtax on millionaires. Republicans believe, correctly, that this is not a pro-growth economic policy. But, they are willing to go along with the extension if Obama will agree to move forward on the Keystone XL pipeline, and they propose to fund the tax cut in other ways. That sounds like compromise to me. But Obama has threatened a veto, and Harry Reid says he won't even allow such a proposal to come to a vote in the Senate. This is the same Harry Reid who thinks the concept that millionaires create jobs is as mythical as the unicorn, but I digress.
In other words, Republicans are saying let's compromise. Obama gets his payroll tax cut, and in return they ask for a project that will create jobs and allow the country to lessen its dependence on oil from the Mideast. Sounds like a pretty reasonable compromise to me.
It seems to me that Obama is now in the unenviable position of having to explain to the middle class, who he claims to champion, that he will not extend their payroll tax cut if it means creating more jobs and improving the nation's energy situation. Then again, he recently said that the payroll tax cut would create more jobs than the Keystone XL pipeline. Which means that, like Harry Reid, he is either astonishingly ignorant or couldn't care less whether his utterances have any connection to reality. He will have to rely heavily on his spin doctors and hope that the public is not paying attention.
December 13, 2011
Tax Rates, Inequality, and the 1%
As the article linked below correctly points out, those who obsess over income inequality should hope and pray for stock market crashes and deep recessions. They are a great recipe for reducing income inequality.
Tax Rates, Inequality, and the 1%
Tax Rates, Inequality, and the 1%
December 12, 2011
The Norquist Myth
Following is an article by Charles Krauthammer. It sheds some much needed light on what is arguably the most important debate currently being waged in Washington.
I would add to Krauthammer's comments that, historically, whether tax rates on the rich are high (90%) or low (28%), revenues to the federal government remain fixed at approximately 19% of GDP. Therefore, the key to more revenues is a growing economy and policies that promote such growth, as opposed to the policies pursued over the past few years. I fear that in the pursuit of "fairness," progressives will bring the economy down.
The Grover Norquist Tax Myth
I would add to Krauthammer's comments that, historically, whether tax rates on the rich are high (90%) or low (28%), revenues to the federal government remain fixed at approximately 19% of GDP. Therefore, the key to more revenues is a growing economy and policies that promote such growth, as opposed to the policies pursued over the past few years. I fear that in the pursuit of "fairness," progressives will bring the economy down.
The Grover Norquist Tax Myth
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)