Democrats target new tax on Advertising?
October 22, 2009
The advertising business isn’t doing so hot. The various firms we work with are laying off staff, cutting expenses and just trying to hold on until business gets back to normal. Of course the ‘MadMen’ have had to cut back on campaign donations to Democrats and of course to their K Street lobbists. Senate Democrats, led by Al Franken, have decided to get rid of the tax deduction for advertising. Specifically AdAge is reporting, “legislation has been introduced in the Senate to eliminate the federal tax deduction on advertising for prescription-drug medications.” This industry is already reeling from the current economic climate. According to AdAge, “The AAF estimates that disallowing the advertising tax deduction would increase the costs of advertising and marketing for affected companies by up to 35%. The ad industry provides $6 trillion in annual sales in the U.S. and 21 million jobs, according to the AAF.”
Health care is worth paying for. . .
October 13, 2009
The Senate Finance Committee is going to vote on their version of health care reform today and it looks like the bill will pass. Price Waterhouse Coopers released a report suggesting that the average family’s premium would increase by $4,000 under the Finance Committee’s plan. I asked myself, if we could provide health insurance to 91% of Americans would I be willing to pay an additional $4,000 per year? The easy answer is yes.
But would YOU be willing to pay $4,000 per year? The only thing I am certain of is that while fixing our existing system may save us money, the cost of providing government mandated/provided health insurance will far exceed the savings. I think every living breathing person outside of Washington would agree with me. There is no free lunch – everything has a price. If we want to provide health insurance for 100% of Americans it is going to cost the rest of us (i.e. the people with money). To refocus the debate each of us needs to think about how much we are willing to contribute to solve this problem. How much is reasonable? 10% of your income? The median household income in the US around $50,000 ($10,000 for taxes, $10,000 for family health insurance, $5,000 for 91% Universal Coverage = $25,000 for everything else). Is 10% too much? Some of my friends on the Left would argue that those with more wealth should pay a higher percentage allowing for those with less wealth to pay less (i.e. nothing). What happened to shared responsibility? Should we all pay our fair share?
The problem with the $4,000 cost per family is that it only covers 91% of American families. What about the other 9% of Americans, why don’t they get to have health insurance? What makes us more deserving of health insurance? Isn’t health insurance a right? Why doesn’t Senator Baucus care about those Americans who need health insurance the most? Does he want them to die and to die fast? Aren’t you sick of the debate? I am. None of these guys have a workable plan. In each case, including the Baucus bill, our leaders have made compromises that either make their plan too expensive or ineffective. Health care reform is like a Rubik’s cube – get one side fixed and the rest get mixed up. The irony is that 100% of Americans think our health insurance system is screwed up. It is literally a total mess. The problem is that we don’t agree on how to fix it. About half of us think the government should take it over and offer it to everyone and the other half thinks the government is the problem with the current system. I hope I sit somewhere in the middle. I think government has a role to play – a very important role – to provide the necessary regulations to provide some order to the chaos that free markets create. I believe incremental changes are called for – not a massive overhaul. I even have a plan, how about you? Any ideas how to fix this mess?
A
Nevada won’t pay for health care reform?
October 1, 2009
The Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid from Nevada, has negotiated provisions in the Senate health care reform bill that exempts his state from ‘new’ costs associated with the bill. Why should Nevada be exempt from the cost of health care reform? Senators from Michigan, Oregon and Rhode Island complained that their states should be exempt as well and as a result the Senate bill exempts them from the the cost of health care reform as well. What is the deal? Why are some states getting better deals than others?
Simply, the health care reform package is VERY unpopular in those states. Senator Reid looks as if he might lose his Senate seat as well as members from Michigan, Oregon and Rhode Island. Passage of the Senate health care reform package would almost certainly mean Democrats in these states would lose. What does this mean for Republican states like Texas? It means we will be paying for health care reform for the citizens of Las Vegas, Reno, Portland and Providence.
Where is the outrage? Was this the sort of republic the founders sought to create? I am not the first person to ‘bristle’ over this deal. Manu Raju from Politico is just as incensed.
Sidenote: Talk about unqualified!
September 29, 2009
I was shocked to learn that Senator Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and the top health care guy in the Senate is worth -$40,000. Let me repeat – Senator Baucus is worth a negative forty thousand! The guy earned a BA in economics from Stanford and a law degree, but he has a negative net worth? Why did we (i.e. the richest country in the world) put the poorest guy I know in charge of our finances (much less health care reform)?
Senate Confirmation Hearings are important. . .
September 17, 2009
Whether you are talking about confirmations of cabinet members, czars or Supreme Court nominees – the role of the Senate to check the power of the executive and judicial branches of our government is VERY important. I would argue that the current Senate is being derelict in its duty. When the Senate held its confirmation process of Justice Sotomayor they didn’t probe her legal philosophy on much of anything, much less her support or disdain of capitalism.
In 1886 the U. S. Supreme Court affirmed that corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause just as citizens were. The British House of Lords determined in a 1895 case titled Salomon v. Salomon & Co. that corporations were ‘artificial persons’ with the same rights as flesh and blood people. For more than 100 years Capitalism has operated under this notion and it has served us well until this week.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor has been true to her word that a wise Latina woman would be better able to interpret the Constitution than a bunch of white men. Now firmly ensconced in her lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court she is suggestiong that corporations should NOT be considered “creatures of state law with human characteristics.” In response Justice Ginsburg agreed saying, “a corporation, after all, is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights.” Lovely, just lovely I tell you.
To bad the Senate isn’t uncovering these issues BEFORE they confirm these people. I have been arguing that they need to confirm each Czar – I guess I assumed if they DID they would uncover issues like this BEFORE confirming each appointment. Perhaps I am being too generous with my assumptions. You know what they say about assuming?
Speaking truth to power is ugly. . .
September 9, 2009
There is no getting around the fact that speaking truth to power is ugly. If someone gets caught over and over telling lies it is hard to resist calling them a liar. South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson couldn’t resist shouting down Obama during his speech to Congress, branding him a liar. Obama suggested that the current health care bills (namely 3200) don’t include provisions that would cover illegal immigrants. Lots of time has been spent on this issue, Obama knows that the current bill covers illegals.
Rep Wilson rightly points out that Section 1702 of the bill restricts inquiries about immigration status expanding Medicaid eligibility. Rep Dean Heller and Rep Nathan Dean offered a number of clarifications and fixes to this section that were rejected. Rep Lamar Smith explains,
H.R. 3200 contains gaping loopholes that will allow illegal immigrants to receive taxpayer-funded benefits. And these loopholes are no accident. The legislation contains no verification mechanism to ensure that illegal immigrants do not apply for benefits. Republicans offered an amendment to close this loophole — it would have required verification using the existing methods that are already in place to verify eligibility for other federal benefits programs. But, when they were asked to put the language of the bill where their words were, in a party-line vote, House Democrats rejected the amendment to require verification and close this loophole.
Why not just close the loopholes? Why not end the debate. Obama can claim all day, “the plan does not cover illegals”, but why not close the loopholes? Maybe because the language is on purpose – maybe they intend to cover illegal immigrants. Maybe we should cover them, but we should be honest about the plan. I applaud Joe for taking a stand for Americans. I applaud him for speaking truth to power. I wouldn’t have had the guts to do the same . . .
Obama Science Czar: Redistribution is Cure
John Holdren suggests that the U.S. needs to reduce its living standards to fit into the world. He explains that our wealth needs to be redistributed to other countries if the world is to prosper. Just an FYI to my friends on the left, we aren’t ‘out to get these guys’ nor are we ‘making this stuff up’. Obama’s Czars are simply scary – we are scared they will get their way. Watch Holdren explain his position on the US and our wealth:
Congress on Czars = FAIL!
September 5, 2009
The Constitution (Article II, Section 2) states that the President must nominate any public ministers, consuls, judges and ALL other officers of the United States. Additionally, the Congress may, by Law, require the President to nominate inferior Officers (such as so called Czars) as they think proper. In either case, ALL of these nominations MUST be approved by the Senate.
So why doesn’t the Senate approve Czars today? Historically, Czars haven’t really been an issue. Franklin Roosevelt created the role of ‘Czar’ and had more than 15 appointees serve in 10 Czar jobs between 1933 and 1945. From Eisenhower to Bush (H.W.) there were only one or two Czar jobs. Czar jobs increased under Clinton and Bush, but if some reports are correct, they have absolutely exploded under Obama. The ‘Czar’ title is informal so there is no official count of the number of ‘Czar’ jobs in Obama’s White House, but on the low side Obama has as few as 36 and on the high side there could be as many as 85 (though this number would include advisers like Van Jones who have disavowed the ‘Czar’ title). Obama and his team have been very careful to NOT use the title, preferring the ’special adviser’ title instead. Include Cabinet secretaries to this list and Obama has approximately 100 direct reports. James Bailey, professor from George Washington University, notes,
“I think the number probably is getting closer to a 100, that’s not the norm at most Fortune 500 companies. Most CEOs have about seven to 10 people reporting to them, Obama has perhaps 100 people reporting to him. Can they reasonably and responsibly state up with all of the elements that are required to execute their job responsibly?”
Czars are becoming as important as Cabinet officers. Congress should (as is their Constitutional right) require that the President nominate these ‘inferior officers’ so they can approve (or in some cases disapprove) of these people who are running the executive branch. Why? Because the founders SPECIFICALLY included the ‘advice and consent‘ language as part of a “delicate compromise concerting the balance of power in the federal government. Many delegates preferred to develop a strong executive control vested in the President, while others, worried about authoritarian control, preferred to strengthen the Congress. Requiring the President to gain the advice and consent of the Senate achieved both goals without hindering the business of government.”
Why am I bringing this up now? I, like many of you, have been shocked by the sort of people Obama has brought into the White House. The ‘idiot’ du jour is Van Jones. Never heard of him? The major networks (ABC, NBC and CBS) have not covered his exploits, but EVERYONE else has. Just do a Google News Search for his name – or if you are brave, do a Google Blog Search.
Next time you reach out to your Senator suggest that they start providing advice and consent to the President on inferior officers like ‘Czars’ and ‘Special Advisors’.
Who are the Czars? Here is the short list (I don’t have all day to put the full list together):
| Name | Czar Title | Actual (boring) Title |
| Herb Allison | TARP Czar | Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability |
| Alan Bersin | Border Czar | Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Special Representative for Border Affairs |
| Dennis Blair | Intelligence Czar | Director of National Intelligence |
| John Brennan | Terrorism Czar | Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security |
| Carol Browner | Energy Czar | Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change |
| Adolfo Carrion, Jr | Urban Affairs Czar | Director of the White House Office of Urban Affairs |
| Ashton Carter | Weapons Czar | Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics |
| Aneesh Chopra | Technology Czar | Chief Technology Officer |
| Jeffrey Crowley | AIDS Czar | Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy |
| Cameron Davis | Great Lakes Czar | Special advisor to the U.S. EPA overseeing its Great Lakes restoration plan |
| Nancy-Ann DeParle | Health Czar | Director of the White House Office of Health Reform |
| Earl Devaney | Stimulus Accountability Czar | Chair of the Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board |
| Joshua DuBois | Faith-based Czar | Director of the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships |
| Kenneth Feinberg | Pay Czar | Special Master on executive pay |
| Danny Fried | Guantanamo Closure Czar | Special envoy to oversee the closure of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay |
| J. Scott Gration | Sudan Czar | Special Envoy to Sudan |
| Richard Holbrooke | Afghanistan Czar | Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan |
| John Holdren | Science Czar | Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology |
| Van Jones | Green Jobs Czar | Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality |
| Gil Kerlikowske | Drug Czar | Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy |
| Vivek Kundra | Information Czar | Federal Chief Information Officer |
| George Mitchell | Mideast Peace Czar | Special Envoy to the Middle East |
| Ed Montgomery | Car Czar | Director of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers |
| Dennis Ross | Mideast Policy Czar | Special Adviser for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia |
| Gary Samore | WMD Czar | Coordinator for the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism |
| Todd Stern | Climate Czar | Special Envoy for Climate Change |
| Cass Sunstein | Regulatory Czar | Director of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs |
| Paul Volcker | Economic Czar | Chairman of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board |
Democrats Overwelm Bloggers
September 3, 2009
The Democrats, in a very sneaky plot, are attempting to keep conservative bloggers busy by behaving “like jackasses“. The plot wouldn’t work if just one or two Democratic congressmen were behind the effort – the fact that they are all acting nuts is overwhelming our ability to report on the madness. Hot Air has a list of the madness from today:
- Louise Slaughter refused to hold a town hall because she was concerned more ‘right-wing wackos would show up and get their fingers bitten off’.
- Baron Hill freaked out when he found out his constituent want to record his town hall meeting.
- Pete Stark explains that national debt is a sign of wealth???
Is something going on with the water in Congress? Really, someone should look into it. These guys are really out of control.
Hypocrisy isn’t necessarily bad. . .
August 28, 2009
Yglesias has a post titled, “Strange Hypocrisy” suggesting that it is silly to call Massachusetts plan to change the rules for filling Senate vacancies as ‘hypocritical’. Really? Surely we can agree on the definition of words.
hy·poc·ri·sy 1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not.
The Massachusetts legislature argued, during Mitt Romney’s term as governor, that holding a special election would be more democratic than allowing Mitt (a Republican) to appoint Senators when vacancies occur. At the time Romney argued that the legislature didn’t care about being more democratic than they sought to ensure a Democrat continued to hold both Senate seats in Massachusetts. Romney argued that leaving the seat vacant until a special election could be held would leave the people of Massachusetts without representation. The legislature was unconvinced.
Today, the same legislature has taken the same position they rejected from Romney and argued that it is more important to have a Democrat in office than waiting for a more democratic outcome. This is the very definition of hypocrisy. Of course, the legislature is allowed to be hypocritical – it is perfectly legal. I am just shocked that Yglesias would try to argue that they aren’t being hypocritical.
