Tim Wildmon - Guest Columnist - 3/31/2009 7:50:00 AM
Do you remember a few short years back when Trent Lott was forced to resign his position as Senate majority leader? Lott joked at a private birthday party for aging colleague Strom Thurmond, saying that the country would have been better off had Thurmond been elected president when he was a younger man. But because Thurmond was a segregationist in his earlier years, as were so many politicians who later saw the error of their ways, the liberal media took from that joke that Lott was saying America would have been better off without civil rights for black Americans. Within a day, civil rights groups and the Democrats were calling for Lott to resign. Just a short time later, Lott's own party joined the chorus and so he did, in fact, step down as the leader of the Senate.
What Lott said, with a long reach, could have been construed as insensitive by opportunists, I suppose. But, honestly, what he was doing was simply paying an old man a kind word at his birthday party. He meant no harm towards anyone. But Lott was demonized by the press and treated as if he was a pariah after that.
Contrast that with what President Barack Obama said on national television a couple of weeks back. He was on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno when the subject of the bowling alley at the White House came up. Talking about his lack of bowling skills, Obama made this remark about his game: "It was like Special Olympics or something." And the studio audience laughed heartily.
And the liberal media and Democratic Party leaders had this reaction: Insert sound of crickets here.
Here you had the president of the United States comparing himself in a comical way to developmentally disabled children -- in short, making fun of their awkward physical movements which they can't help -- and no one in the liberal media or the Democratic Party wants their pound of flesh? Why the silence?
It should be noted that the president did call the head of the Special Olympics from Air Force One on the way back to Washington and apologized for his insensitive remarks.
Did Obama intend anything malicious towards Special Olympics participants? No, he did not. It was just an off-the-cuff remark that he should not have made -- especially on national television and especially when he is president.
So Obama gets a pass for his insensitive gaffe where millions of people are watching, a one-day news story -- yet Lott gets hounded for weeks and all but gets run out of town for an innocent remark he made at a man's private birthday party?
So blatant is the mainstream media's affection for Barack Obama that some have called this era the end of traditional journalism. Emmy Award-winning journalist Bernard Goldberg, whom I had the opportunity to interview on radio recently, has a best-selling book out titled A Slobbering Love Affair: The True and (Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media, which documents this in great detail. Goldberg is not a political conservative, but found offensive and unprofessional the manner in which his colleagues have been in bed with liberal politicians, especially Obama. Traditional journalism teaches that the news media should play the role of "watchdog" of politicians and the government, regardless of which political party happens to be in power.
Can you imagine what would have happened to President Bush had he gone on 60 Minutes and laughed out loud when asked about the terrible condition of our economy as Obama did? The interviewer even asked Obama if he was "punch drunk." If that had been a Republican president, the New York Times headline would have read: "Devil Bush Laughs in Face of Suffering Americans."
How about the fact that Obama bashed Bush unmercifully about the war in Iraq and promised emphatically to bring the troops home in 16 months? Then when he gets elected, he changes to 18 months and says he will leave as many as 50,000 troops in Iraq. Leaving 50,000 troops, a third of what we have now, is not ending the war. He is doing nothing more that what President Bush would have done -- specifically, listening to his commanders on the ground. Do we hear a hue and cry from the liberal media about this? No, we hear more crickets.
The one positive in America today is that we have alternative news sources like OneNewsNow.com in what was once an industry controlled by just a few big agencies. Because the national mainstream news media will not be scrutinizing the Obama administration in the same way they would any other president because they are his political and ideological soul mates. And that is not good for our democratic process or for traditional journalism in America.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Lights go out on Saturday in carbon-conscious cities
Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 3/27/2009 6:00:00 AM
Mississippi is joining the ranks of states whose cities are observing Earth Hour.
Select businesses and government buildings in Tupelo will be dimming their lights in observation of Earth Hour this coming Saturday at 8:30 p.m. local time. Tupelo will be joining cities around the world that have pledged to participate in this event designed to curb carbon emissions and bring awareness to so-called "manmade global warming."
Travis Hunsicker is the sustainability director for Tupelo and the main organizer of the local event. OneNewsNow asked Hunsicker what his stance was on the issue of climate change.
"Um, really, I steer clear of the subject in general, to be honest with you. It's a very sensitive issue -- and scientists, whether it's the [IPCC] or here locally, I haven't read a concise report that declares that climate change is as serious as the media makes it out to be," he admits. "Now it may have adverse effects 10-to-15 years down the road. But like I said, that's not my expertise."
Seeking out a city leader who might have an understanding of the issue, OneNewsNow asked Tupelo Mayor Ed Neely -- who fully supports the upcoming local observance -- about his stance on climate change. "Uh, I think anything that affects our environment is a big issue," Neely says. "I'm not smart enough to know the answers about global warming."
To get some answers, OneNewsNow turned to the country that started Earth Hour -- Australia. Viv Forbes, chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition, says the notion that carbon dioxide is dangerous and needs to be curbed is ridiculous.
"All of [the manmade global warming theory] is based on computer modeling. It's not based on science; it's not based on observed past records; it's not based on observed relationships. It's based on computer models," he contends. "And the models are based on assumptions -- and guess who puts the assumptions in?"
For those who are skeptical about manmade global warming, an alternative celebration is being held during Earth Hour. That event, called Human Achievement Hour, is designed to celebrate the technological achievements of mankind that have improved the quality of life for humans. Participants of Human Achievement Hour will celebrate by reading by electric lights, using their cars to go out to eat and watch movies, and enjoying an evening with their families while keeping the lights on.
Michelle Minton is a policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which initiated Human Achievement Hour.
"And now the way I looked at Earth Hour, when you boil it down, is that it is not so much pro-earth as it is anti-man, anti-industrialism, [and] anti-human achievement," she notes. "So we wanted to point out the hypocrisy of this one-hour event by having our own event in which we appreciate the things that are the products of human innovation like lights, television, radio, cars -- all these things that we consider to make life easier to live."
However, Viv Forbes believes Earth Hour is a necessary event.
"Earth Hour, it's got another benefit. It's going to let people know what the future may hold because if we persist in trying to generate our electricity from windmills and solar panels, we are going to go into a world of brown-outs and black-outs," he says. "And every night at 8:30, when everybody turns on their coffee machine to make a coffee, the lights will go out. Because they might not have noticed, but there is no power from the sun at 8:30 at night. It's usually quiet and there is no power from the wind either. So Earth Hour is a good dose of what the future may hold."
Mississippi is joining the ranks of states whose cities are observing Earth Hour.
Select businesses and government buildings in Tupelo will be dimming their lights in observation of Earth Hour this coming Saturday at 8:30 p.m. local time. Tupelo will be joining cities around the world that have pledged to participate in this event designed to curb carbon emissions and bring awareness to so-called "manmade global warming."
Travis Hunsicker is the sustainability director for Tupelo and the main organizer of the local event. OneNewsNow asked Hunsicker what his stance was on the issue of climate change.
"Um, really, I steer clear of the subject in general, to be honest with you. It's a very sensitive issue -- and scientists, whether it's the [IPCC] or here locally, I haven't read a concise report that declares that climate change is as serious as the media makes it out to be," he admits. "Now it may have adverse effects 10-to-15 years down the road. But like I said, that's not my expertise."
Seeking out a city leader who might have an understanding of the issue, OneNewsNow asked Tupelo Mayor Ed Neely -- who fully supports the upcoming local observance -- about his stance on climate change. "Uh, I think anything that affects our environment is a big issue," Neely says. "I'm not smart enough to know the answers about global warming."
To get some answers, OneNewsNow turned to the country that started Earth Hour -- Australia. Viv Forbes, chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition, says the notion that carbon dioxide is dangerous and needs to be curbed is ridiculous.
"All of [the manmade global warming theory] is based on computer modeling. It's not based on science; it's not based on observed past records; it's not based on observed relationships. It's based on computer models," he contends. "And the models are based on assumptions -- and guess who puts the assumptions in?"
For those who are skeptical about manmade global warming, an alternative celebration is being held during Earth Hour. That event, called Human Achievement Hour, is designed to celebrate the technological achievements of mankind that have improved the quality of life for humans. Participants of Human Achievement Hour will celebrate by reading by electric lights, using their cars to go out to eat and watch movies, and enjoying an evening with their families while keeping the lights on.
Michelle Minton is a policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which initiated Human Achievement Hour.
"And now the way I looked at Earth Hour, when you boil it down, is that it is not so much pro-earth as it is anti-man, anti-industrialism, [and] anti-human achievement," she notes. "So we wanted to point out the hypocrisy of this one-hour event by having our own event in which we appreciate the things that are the products of human innovation like lights, television, radio, cars -- all these things that we consider to make life easier to live."
However, Viv Forbes believes Earth Hour is a necessary event.
"Earth Hour, it's got another benefit. It's going to let people know what the future may hold because if we persist in trying to generate our electricity from windmills and solar panels, we are going to go into a world of brown-outs and black-outs," he says. "And every night at 8:30, when everybody turns on their coffee machine to make a coffee, the lights will go out. Because they might not have noticed, but there is no power from the sun at 8:30 at night. It's usually quiet and there is no power from the wind either. So Earth Hour is a good dose of what the future may hold."
Thursday, March 19, 2009
On April 15, be part of the Taxed Enough Already (TEA) party rally in your community
What a terrifically clever idea...
On the day you pay your taxes, Wednesday, April 15, join others across the country and in your hometown who will be participating in TEA party rallies in front of their city halls. The TEA party rally will begin at 12 noon.
Are you fed up with a Congress and a president who:
vote for a $500 billion tax bill without even reading it?
are spending trillions of borrowed dollars, leaving a debt our great-grandchildren will be paying?
consistently give special interest groups billions of dollars in earmarks to help get themselves re-elected?
want to take your wealth and redistribute it to others?
punish those who practice responsible financial behavior and reward those who do not?
admit to using the financial hurt of millions as an opportunity to push their political agenda?
run up trillions of dollars of debt and then sell that debt to countries such as China?
want government controlled health care?
want to take away the right to vote with a secret ballot in union elections?
refuse to stop the flow of millions of illegal immigrants into our country?
appoint a defender of child pornography to the Number 2 position in the Justice Department?
want to force doctors and other medical workers to perform abortions against their will?
want to impose a carbon tax on your electricity, gas and home heating fuels?
want to reduce your tax deductibility for charitable gifts?
take money from your family budget to pay for their federal budget?
If so, participate in the TEA party rally, the Taxed Enough Already (TEA) party.
Bring your cell phone and call Congress and the president while attending the TEA party rally (Representative and Senators, 202-224-3121; President, 202-456-1414). Tell Every American about this effort by forwarding this invitation to your friends. Together we can make a difference.
On the day you pay your taxes, Wednesday, April 15, join others across the country and in your hometown who will be participating in TEA party rallies in front of their city halls. The TEA party rally will begin at 12 noon.
Are you fed up with a Congress and a president who:
vote for a $500 billion tax bill without even reading it?
are spending trillions of borrowed dollars, leaving a debt our great-grandchildren will be paying?
consistently give special interest groups billions of dollars in earmarks to help get themselves re-elected?
want to take your wealth and redistribute it to others?
punish those who practice responsible financial behavior and reward those who do not?
admit to using the financial hurt of millions as an opportunity to push their political agenda?
run up trillions of dollars of debt and then sell that debt to countries such as China?
want government controlled health care?
want to take away the right to vote with a secret ballot in union elections?
refuse to stop the flow of millions of illegal immigrants into our country?
appoint a defender of child pornography to the Number 2 position in the Justice Department?
want to force doctors and other medical workers to perform abortions against their will?
want to impose a carbon tax on your electricity, gas and home heating fuels?
want to reduce your tax deductibility for charitable gifts?
take money from your family budget to pay for their federal budget?
If so, participate in the TEA party rally, the Taxed Enough Already (TEA) party.
Bring your cell phone and call Congress and the president while attending the TEA party rally (Representative and Senators, 202-224-3121; President, 202-456-1414). Tell Every American about this effort by forwarding this invitation to your friends. Together we can make a difference.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Bucking the media trend on global warming 'crisis'
Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 3/9/2009 8:15:00 AM
NEW YORK CITY - Speakers at a conference on climate change are making the case that the alarmism behind the global-warming bandwagon is politically motivated, has nothing to do with science, and could affect the sovereignty of the U.S.
The second annual International Conference on Climate Change hosted by The Heartland Institute is well under way in New York City. More than 700 registrants have gathered in the Big Apple to hear more than 70 scientists -- representing the views of tens of thousands of their colleagues -- make the argument that media and environmental advocacy groups have it all wrong, that global warming is not a crisis.
One of the headlining speakers to open the event Sunday evening was European Union and Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus, who was welcomed with a standing ovation. Klaus, one of the most outspoken critics of manmade global warming in Europe, says those who propagate global-warming hysteria are like the communists of old Europe. Like global-warming alarmists, he stated, the communists did not listen to opposing views.
"They didn't even try to argue back," said Klaus. "They considered you a naïve, uninformed and confused person, an eccentric complainer....It is very similar now."
Klaus believes that politicians who propagate global warming hysteria only have one goal in mind: control of the public. "It is evident that the environmentalists don't want to change the climate," he said. "They want to change our behavior...to control and manipulate us."
And he warns that those same politicians wish to engage in energy rationing -- all because of a problem that he believes does not exist. Klaus concluded his speech with this remark.
"The environmentalists speak about saving the planet. We have to ask -- From what? And from whom?" said the EU leader. "I think I know [those answers] for sure. We have to save the planet, and us, from them."
Opposition an 'uphill battle' (audio report)
Dr. Richard Lindzen, who has been Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT for over 25 years, was one of the keynote speakers on the opening day. He said global warming hysteria is more about a political agenda and has nothing to do with science.
"I think [there is] one point you should notice as one discusses the science, and that is that global warming alarm -- as far as I can tell -- has always been a political movement, a highly organized one," Lindzen observed. "And although it took me a while to realize this, opposing it has always been an uphill battle."
The MIT professor, one of the world's most respected atmospheric physicists, said that many of his good friends and colleagues have subscribed to global warming alarmism because they either fear for their jobs or see it as a way to get funding for scientific projects. He also discussed the use of supposed "climate models," and quipped that as scientists debate intelligent design, climate models are an example of "unintelligent design."
Lindzen contends that climate models are being fed erroneous information in order to get the results that global-warming alarmists want.
Throwing money away (audio report)
Dr. Michael Coffman is the CEO of Sovereignty International, a U.N. watchdog organization. During an interview at the conference with OneNewsNow, he explained that the basis of his skepticism regarding global warming comes from research he himself has conducted.
"During the 1980s and early 1990s, I lead a multimillion-dollar research effort on global warming and found that the data that was being collected just didn't support the hypothesis that man was causing global warming," says Coffman.
Therefore he concludes that any money thrown at fixing the alleged problem is a waste.
"Any amount of money that we spend on it is not going to change any temperatures whatsoever," he observes, arguing that every family in America will be affected. "Because depending upon what legislation is passed, it will actually cause every American family to spend at least two- to five-thousand dollars more a year...to try to support this effort to curb carbon-dioxide emissions."
Coffman warns that politicians are moving towards having an international tribunal established which will regulate carbon emissions.
"Which means basically since carbon dioxide is involved in all elements of business in the United States, ...whoever does this controls the economy of the United States, and therefore our sovereignty," he cautions.
Later Monday a keynote speaker from Congress will be discussing the political aspect of global warming in greater detail.
NEW YORK CITY - Speakers at a conference on climate change are making the case that the alarmism behind the global-warming bandwagon is politically motivated, has nothing to do with science, and could affect the sovereignty of the U.S.
The second annual International Conference on Climate Change hosted by The Heartland Institute is well under way in New York City. More than 700 registrants have gathered in the Big Apple to hear more than 70 scientists -- representing the views of tens of thousands of their colleagues -- make the argument that media and environmental advocacy groups have it all wrong, that global warming is not a crisis.
One of the headlining speakers to open the event Sunday evening was European Union and Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus, who was welcomed with a standing ovation. Klaus, one of the most outspoken critics of manmade global warming in Europe, says those who propagate global-warming hysteria are like the communists of old Europe. Like global-warming alarmists, he stated, the communists did not listen to opposing views.
"They didn't even try to argue back," said Klaus. "They considered you a naïve, uninformed and confused person, an eccentric complainer....It is very similar now."
Klaus believes that politicians who propagate global warming hysteria only have one goal in mind: control of the public. "It is evident that the environmentalists don't want to change the climate," he said. "They want to change our behavior...to control and manipulate us."
And he warns that those same politicians wish to engage in energy rationing -- all because of a problem that he believes does not exist. Klaus concluded his speech with this remark.
"The environmentalists speak about saving the planet. We have to ask -- From what? And from whom?" said the EU leader. "I think I know [those answers] for sure. We have to save the planet, and us, from them."
Opposition an 'uphill battle' (audio report)
Dr. Richard Lindzen, who has been Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT for over 25 years, was one of the keynote speakers on the opening day. He said global warming hysteria is more about a political agenda and has nothing to do with science.
"I think [there is] one point you should notice as one discusses the science, and that is that global warming alarm -- as far as I can tell -- has always been a political movement, a highly organized one," Lindzen observed. "And although it took me a while to realize this, opposing it has always been an uphill battle."
The MIT professor, one of the world's most respected atmospheric physicists, said that many of his good friends and colleagues have subscribed to global warming alarmism because they either fear for their jobs or see it as a way to get funding for scientific projects. He also discussed the use of supposed "climate models," and quipped that as scientists debate intelligent design, climate models are an example of "unintelligent design."
Lindzen contends that climate models are being fed erroneous information in order to get the results that global-warming alarmists want.
Throwing money away (audio report)
Dr. Michael Coffman is the CEO of Sovereignty International, a U.N. watchdog organization. During an interview at the conference with OneNewsNow, he explained that the basis of his skepticism regarding global warming comes from research he himself has conducted.
"During the 1980s and early 1990s, I lead a multimillion-dollar research effort on global warming and found that the data that was being collected just didn't support the hypothesis that man was causing global warming," says Coffman.
Therefore he concludes that any money thrown at fixing the alleged problem is a waste.
"Any amount of money that we spend on it is not going to change any temperatures whatsoever," he observes, arguing that every family in America will be affected. "Because depending upon what legislation is passed, it will actually cause every American family to spend at least two- to five-thousand dollars more a year...to try to support this effort to curb carbon-dioxide emissions."
Coffman warns that politicians are moving towards having an international tribunal established which will regulate carbon emissions.
"Which means basically since carbon dioxide is involved in all elements of business in the United States, ...whoever does this controls the economy of the United States, and therefore our sovereignty," he cautions.
Later Monday a keynote speaker from Congress will be discussing the political aspect of global warming in greater detail.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Obama Shoots for Mars
Larry Elder - Syndicated Columnist - 2/26/2009 9:45:00 AM
President Barack Obama, on Tuesday night, gave his first presidential address before Congress. He looked good, sounded great, and delivered his address with poise and confidence. He entered the Capitol and made his way through the applauding throng like a modern-day Moses slowly parting the Red Sea.
The moment was certainly historic, and all Americans -- or at least nearly all Americans -- took pride in living in a country that went from a Constitution that defined a black as three-fifths of a person to one where a black person could be elected President of the United States. Some journey!
But when the applause died down, the President took out a scattergun and attempted to hit everything in sight. He confidently asserted his and our intention to overcome the current economic downturn and march toward an even brighter future.
How? Government/taxpayers will spend our way to the summit.
He/Congress/we will "invest" in healthcare and education; "save or create" 3.5 million jobs; "cure cancer within our lifetime"; provide assistance to the states; "save our planet from the ravages of climate change"; save banks and other financial institutions while holding "accountable those responsible" for their problems; increase the size of the military; end torture (presumably he meant of our enemies); and cut the size of the deficit.
What?! Nothing about crafting a college football playoff?
After the President's speech, the political commentators fell over themselves in complimenting the President. Many said things like "he aimed high," "he set out an ambitious agenda," and "he outlined a vigorous list of expected accomplishments."
Economist Thomas Sowell uses a three-pronged test to examine government's "new ideas." 1) How much will it cost? 2) Who pays? 3) Will it work? Few of the post-speech analysts seemed to care.
One waited in vain for the political experts to point out that the President's spending spree must come from somewhere -- taxes or borrowing or printing.
And, as an aside, how would the press have reacted had former President George W. Bush claimed -- as did Obama -- that America "invented the automobile"?
Suppose Bush steered a shopping cart down the aisle, packed it with everything in sight that he could grab, pushed it to the cashier, and then said, "You mean I gotta pay?"
The President, on Tuesday night, promised to both lower taxes and raise taxes. He promised to both reduce spending and increase it. He promised to expand education while simultaneously claiming that education begins in the home. He promised to bail out homeowners -- "responsible" ones -- while insisting that Americans take responsibility for living beyond our means and making bad choices.
He promised to provide financial assistance to states while never mentioning the states' fiscal irresponsibility. He said, "There are 57 police officers who are still on the streets of Minneapolis tonight because this plan prevented the layoffs their department was about to make," yet said nothing about whether that state budgeted or spent responsibly.
He unilaterally abolished the notion that "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Under his administration, the free lunch not only exists, but government bureaucrats provide takeout or delivery.
The President, last night, mentioned no total price tag for all this largesse. He did say, however, that he intends to raise taxes on the two percent of Americans making more than $250,000. Somehow he expects to burden "the rich" still more and not affect their behavior. Already, the top one percent pays nearly 40 percent of all federal income taxes.
The President, as he said during the campaign, promised to lower taxes on 95 percent of Americans. Of course, nearly 30 percent of working Americans pay zero in federal income taxes. But they, too, will get checks. And, Obama said to applause, the "checks are on the way."
The President sketched out a federal government grab larger than any in the history of our nation. His administration intends to bail out and oversee everything from banks to car manufacturers to lemonade stands.
Be not afraid about waste, mismanagement or politically directed spending. To ensure that our money is spent properly, the Obama administration intends to post the allocations on the Internet, ensuring wise and appropriate fund distribution.
Do those who voted against the President "want him to fail"? No, those who opposed the President want America to succeed. The formula for that success has a long and impressive track record: lower taxes, rein in government spending, and promote free trade. Let's put it another way: Remove government's boot from the neck of the American worker, businessperson and entrepreneur.
Set them free. Watch what happens.
CREATORS SYNDICATE COPYRIGHT 2009 LAURENCE A. ELDER
Thursday, February 26, 2009
President Obama's $1 Trillion Tax Hike Plan
Thursday, February 26, 2009 4:59 PM
By: Chris Gonsalves
Looking to fund an ambitious healthcare program and put more money in the hands of the poor and the non-working, President Barack Obama wants wealthier Americans and businesses to pay nearly $1 trillion in higher taxes over the next decade.
In his proposed 2010 budget, released today, Obama suggests bringing back the top two Clinton-era tax rates of 36 percent and 39.6 percent for the nation’s highest earners. Those taxpayers currently pay 33 percent and 35 percent. More than 2.6 million Americans would be forced to pay the higher rates, according to Bloomberg News.
Tax rates on capital gains and dividends will rise to 20 percent for top earners, up from the 15 percent rate set by former President George W. Bush in 2003.
“It’s a clear repudiation of Bush’s policy,” Peter Morici, an economist at the University of Maryland in College Park, tells Bloomberg. “It’s more Obama Robin Hood.”
As if the rate changes weren’t enough, Obama also proposes punishing the rich by stopping the scheduled repeal of the controversial estate tax next year. The president suggests imposing a 45 percent tax rate on any family’s estate worth more than $7 million.
The Obama tax hikes also include new restrictions on itemized deductions for families that earn more than $250,000 per year. Deductions for things like charitable donations, mortgage interest and investment expenses will be capped at 28 percent for the wealthiest taxpayers, some 30 percent less than they currently get.
By 2020, taxpayers in the wealthiest households will pay $636.7 billion in additional taxes according to estimates in the budget proposal.
The changes would be phased in gradually over the next few years, according to an analysis of the budget by the Wall Street Journal. For the 2009 tax year, the 33 percent tax bracket starts with couples with adjusted earnings of $208,850. A taxpayer in the top bracket paying $1,000 of mortgage interest, for example, would see a tax break worth $350 reduced to $280.
According to estimates from Deloitte Tax, a married couple with 2 children under age 17 and income of $500,000 a year would owe approximately $11,300 more than under current law if all of the tax provisions in Obama's budget request outline were enacted, CNN reported.
The remainder of the $1 trillion tax hike would come from $353.5 billion in additional levies on businesses, especially U.S.-based multinational corporations. Obama’s proposal calls for significantly rewriting the rules on the taxability of profits earned overseas, increased enforcement of international tax collections and changes in accounting that would serve as a “windfall profits tax” aimed largely at the oil companies.
"This budget plan is once again a missed opportunity for American taxpayers — it raises taxes on all Americans, implements massive new spending and fails to make any tough choices to control the deficit," Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., the top Budget Committee Republican, told the Associated Press. Gregg was nominated by Obama to join his Cabinet as commerce secretary but later withdrew.
By: Chris Gonsalves
Looking to fund an ambitious healthcare program and put more money in the hands of the poor and the non-working, President Barack Obama wants wealthier Americans and businesses to pay nearly $1 trillion in higher taxes over the next decade.
In his proposed 2010 budget, released today, Obama suggests bringing back the top two Clinton-era tax rates of 36 percent and 39.6 percent for the nation’s highest earners. Those taxpayers currently pay 33 percent and 35 percent. More than 2.6 million Americans would be forced to pay the higher rates, according to Bloomberg News.
Tax rates on capital gains and dividends will rise to 20 percent for top earners, up from the 15 percent rate set by former President George W. Bush in 2003.
“It’s a clear repudiation of Bush’s policy,” Peter Morici, an economist at the University of Maryland in College Park, tells Bloomberg. “It’s more Obama Robin Hood.”
As if the rate changes weren’t enough, Obama also proposes punishing the rich by stopping the scheduled repeal of the controversial estate tax next year. The president suggests imposing a 45 percent tax rate on any family’s estate worth more than $7 million.
The Obama tax hikes also include new restrictions on itemized deductions for families that earn more than $250,000 per year. Deductions for things like charitable donations, mortgage interest and investment expenses will be capped at 28 percent for the wealthiest taxpayers, some 30 percent less than they currently get.
By 2020, taxpayers in the wealthiest households will pay $636.7 billion in additional taxes according to estimates in the budget proposal.
The changes would be phased in gradually over the next few years, according to an analysis of the budget by the Wall Street Journal. For the 2009 tax year, the 33 percent tax bracket starts with couples with adjusted earnings of $208,850. A taxpayer in the top bracket paying $1,000 of mortgage interest, for example, would see a tax break worth $350 reduced to $280.
According to estimates from Deloitte Tax, a married couple with 2 children under age 17 and income of $500,000 a year would owe approximately $11,300 more than under current law if all of the tax provisions in Obama's budget request outline were enacted, CNN reported.
The remainder of the $1 trillion tax hike would come from $353.5 billion in additional levies on businesses, especially U.S.-based multinational corporations. Obama’s proposal calls for significantly rewriting the rules on the taxability of profits earned overseas, increased enforcement of international tax collections and changes in accounting that would serve as a “windfall profits tax” aimed largely at the oil companies.
"This budget plan is once again a missed opportunity for American taxpayers — it raises taxes on all Americans, implements massive new spending and fails to make any tough choices to control the deficit," Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., the top Budget Committee Republican, told the Associated Press. Gregg was nominated by Obama to join his Cabinet as commerce secretary but later withdrew.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Great Pro-Life Speech by Young Girl in Canada
This is an awesome speech and I would recommend watching it on the link provided below. What a well researched and thought out speech for a child, or even most adults...
Preteen pro-life speech goes viral
Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 2/20/2009 6:15:00 AM
The mother of a 12-year-old girl whose pro-life speech has become a hit YouTube video says her daughter's passion for the unborn is genuine.
Lia is a preteen from Canada who decided to speak out against abortion in her school's speech contest, despite teachers and school officials who encouraged her to pick a different topic.
"What if I told you that right now someone was choosing if you were going to live or die? What if I told you that this choice wasn't based on what you could or couldn't do, what you had done in the past, or what you would do in the future? And what if I told you [that] you could nothing about it? Fellow students and teachers, thousands of children are right now in that very situation," she says in her speech.
Kimberly, Lia's mother, says Lia was told by school officials that if she chose the topic of abortion, she would not be allowed to participate in the speech contest. But both were surprised when Lia's pro-choice teacher had a change of heart.
"Her teacher was really impressed by this speech and perhaps moved by it, and therefore her teacher kind of was a real supporter of [Lia] winning for the class," Kimberly notes. "And she had to go through a couple of hoops and get clearance from a couple of other teachers before she could be declared winner of the class."
Another controversy erupted when the panel of judges had a supposed big disagreement and one stepped down. Initially Lia was disqualified, but later the panel declared her the winner. She was asked to take out this portion of her speech: "[F]etuses are definitely humans knit together in their mother's womb by their wonderful Creator who knows them all by name."
Kimberly says after Lia was told to remove that portion of her speech, she took time to think about her decision and ultimately decided to leave it in. Lia also competed in a regional speech competition but did not win. However, her speech has been viewed by over 200,000 people on YouTube.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
