Democrats have been running Congress for nearly four years, and President Obama has been at the White House for 18 months, so it’s not too soon to ask: How’s that working out? One devastating scorecard came out Friday from the White House, in the form of its own semi-annual budget review.
The message: Tax revenues are smaller, spending is greater, and the deficits are thus larger than the White House has been saying. No wonder it dumped the news on the eve of a sweltering mid-July weekend.
[…]As a share of the economy, the White House now says the deficit in fiscal 2010, which ends on September 30, will be even larger than in 2009: 10%. That’s after a full year of economic growth, given that the recovery began last summer. More remarkable still, the deficit will barely fall in fiscal 2011, declining only to 9.2% of GDP in the second year of a recovery that ought to be gaining steam.
Let’s compare Obama and Reagan.
To put this in historical context, consider the nearby table that compares deficits as a share of GDP under Presidents Reagan and Obama. The 1981-82 recession was comparable in severity to the one Mr. Obama inherited and reached similar heights of unemployment. The deficits that resulted from that recession were the source of huge political consternation, with Democrats, the press corps and even some senior Reagan aides insisting that only a huge tax increase could save the country from ruin.
Yet as the table shows, the Reagan deficits never reached more than 6% of GDP, and that happened only in 1983, the first year of economic recovery. As the 1980s expansion continued, the deficits fell, especially as the pace of spending slowed in the latter part of Reagan’s second term.
[…]The Obama deficits are double that, and more than one-third higher than even the Gipper’s worst year. What explains this? Part of it is that Democrats are simply spending much more, sending outlays as a share of GDP above 25% for the first time since World War II. The White House now says outlays will be higher in 2011, at 25.1% of GDP, than at the height of the stimulus in 2009 and 2010.
[…]The other explanation for the record Obama deficits is that revenues have been so anemic, thanks to the lackluster economic recovery. In the Reagan years, revenues as a share of GDP never fell lower than 17.3%, despite (or we would say because of) his pro-growth tax cuts. In 2010, by contrast, the White House now says tax revenues will hit an astonishing low of 14.5% of GDP, rising only to 15.8% in 2011, even with the huge tax increase that hits on January 1, 2011.
Tax cuts worked, and government spending failed. Next time, let’s do what works – not what feels good.
Double-digit unemployment looms. The country is in a funk. The federal budget deficit is widening to an extent not seen in decades.
This scenario isn’t new. It also describes the U.S. in 1982. Somehow, the 1980s and the 1990s turned out to be pretty good years. So it’s worthwhile to compare current policy to the one followed then.
…Today, taxes are on their way up. Whether it will be abolishing some of the tax deductibility of health care or increasing taxes on soda, President Barack Obama and Congress are clearly signaling the direction in which they want to move. Most tax increases under discussion would make the rich, or companies, the first to pay. The justification offered for this is that the federal government needs the money and may know how to spend it better than the private sector, anyhow.
…In the early 1980s, the view on taxes was the opposite: get them down. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, enacted by Ronald Reagan, pushed tax rates down for wealthy and non-wealthy alike. The capital gains tax rate dropped to 20 percent. When Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the top marginal rate on income taxes fell to 28 percent.
The [health care] bill’s main financing comes from another tax increase on top of the increase already scheduled for 2011 under Mr. Obama’s budget. The surtax starts at one percentage point for adjusted gross income above $350,000 in 2011, rising to two points in 2013; a 1.5 point surtax at incomes above $500,000, rising to three in 2013; and a whopping 5.4 percentage points in 2011 and beyond on incomes above $1 million.
And what happens when you tax the rich?
House Democrats… claim that this surtax would raise $544 billion in new revenue over 10 years. America’s millionaires aren’t that stupid; far fewer of them will pay these rates for very long, if at all. They will find ways to shelter income, either by investing differently or simply working less. Small businesses that pay at the individual rate will shift to pay the 35% corporate rate. When the revenue doesn’t materialize, Democrats will move to soak the middle class with a European-style value-added tax.
It should be noted that a value-added sales tax disproportionately hurts the poor.
Breitbart reports on Obambi’s latest effort to be loved by bloodthirsty dictators abroad.(H/T Stop the ACLU)
Excerpt:
President Barack Obama says he believes supreme leader Ayatollah ali Khamenei has deep concerns about the civil unrest that has followed the hotly contested presidential election there.
Obama repeated Tuesday at a news conference his “deep concerns” about the disputed balloting. He said he believes the ayatollah’s decision to order an investigation “indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns.”
But at the same time, Obama said it would not be helpful if the United States was seen by the world as “meddling” in the issue.
What do other Western countries have to say about Iran?
…the Germans, who shamefully happen to be Europe’s biggest exporters to Iran, strongly denounced the crackdown on protestors, as have a number of European governments. Foreign Minister Frank Walter Steinmeier condemned the “brutal actions” against demonstrators, and summoned the Iranian Ambassador to Berlin in protest.
Merkel is a conservative, not a moral relativist secular-leftist. Freedom means something to her.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Tuesday branded Iran’s election result a fraud as the international outcry over the security forces’ crackdown on the opposition in Tehran intensified.
Governments from Asia to Europe voiced concern about the violence that erupted Monday during rallies protesting the hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s re-election, with US President Barack Obama saying he had “deep concerns” while also not wanting to meddle in Iran’s affairs.
But while some governments tried to avoid taking sides, Sarkozy said the unrest was a direct result of Ahmadinejad’s failings in his first term.
“The extent of the fraud is proportional to the violent reaction,” said the French leader.
Sarkozy is a conservative, not a moral relativist secular-leftist. Freedom means something to him.
“We have called for a full and transparent investigation into electoral fraud and discrepancies,” Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon told Parliament in Ottawa, as the government called Iran’s top diplomat on the carpet to explain the reported beating and detention of a freelance Canadian journalist in Tehran following Friday’s contested ballot.
“The security force’s brutal treatment of peaceful demonstrators is unacceptable.”
“The government of Canada calls for freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Iran, and urges the country to fully respect all of its human rights obligations, both in law and in practice. We also continue to call on Iran to comply immediately with its legal obligations concerning its nuclear program.”
Harper is a conservative, not a moral relativist secular-leftist. Freedom means something to him.
What about the Republicans?
Consider conservative Republicans like Mike Pence: (H/T Hot Air)
We are witnessing a Tiananmen in Tehran, and the United States of America must stand in the gap on behalf of those brave Iranian citizens who are standing for free and fair elections, democracy and basic rights.
Let me say from my heart, the American cause is freedom and in this cause the American people will not be silent, here or abroad. If the President of the United States won’t express the unqualified support of our nation for the dissidents in the streets of Tehran, this Congress must.
What will you do about it, Republican Congressman Mike Pence?
Today I’m introducing a resolution that will do just that. It will express its concern regarding the reported irregularities of the presidential election of 12 June, 2009. It will condemn the violence against demonstrators by pro-government militia in Tehran in the wake of the elections. It will affirm our belief in the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections. And lastly, and most importantly, it will express the support of the American people for all Iranian citizens who struggle for freedom, civil liberties and the protection of the rule of law.
Read the whole thing to find out about his Hungarian neighbor. I have Lebanese neighbors, and they say the same things – the USA is the guardian of freedom in the world. Our military might is the reason why countries like South Korea are free. We should not have elected Democrats who let let innocent people die while bashing liberty and prosperity to foreign dictators. Being a Democrat means being an amoral coward. It means being interested in your own comforts, provided stealing from those who work, and ignoring the real poor and oppressed who languish under despots abroad.
Why can’t Obama give a speech like this? Because Obama is a Democrat, and Democrats are moral relativists. Always remember how Evan Sayet explained why progressives hate what is good and love what is evil. They believe in abolishing moral distinctionsso that all disagreements will disappear, and so they must side with tyrants and terrorists against freedom and prosperity.
What would Reagan do?
Remember what it was like to have a Christian President, who beleived in God, and objective morality, and wanted everyone in the world to enjoy certain inalienable rights, guaranteed by their Creator? Remember “The Speech” he gave in 1964?
And his speech at the Berlin wall?
And his 40th anniversary of D-Day speech?
There is a difference between Republicans and Democrats. Those who have high ideals and those who act like spoiled children.
And remember when the atheistic communists were oppressing Poland, and the left was mocking Ronald Reagan for his “naive” anti-communism and his irrational Christian beliefs? That’s right, atheists hate Christianity, and the human rights grounded by it. And they hate capitalism, too. But Reagan didn’t care what the secular left though of his faith and his foreign policy. He didn’t want to be loved by dictators. He stood with Poland.
We view the current situation in Poland in the gravest of terms, particularly the increasing use of force against an unarmed population and violations of the basic civil rights of the Polish people.
Violence invites violence and threatens to plunge Poland into chaos. We call upon all free people to join in urging the Government of Poland to reestablish conditions that will make constructive negotiations and compromise possible.
…The Polish nation, speaking through Solidarity, has provided one of the brightest, bravest moments of modern history. The people of Poland are giving us an imperishable example of courage and devotion to the values of freedom in the face of relentless opposition. Left to themselves, the Polish people would enjoy a new birth of freedom. But there are those who oppose the idea of freedom, who are intolerant of national independence, and hostile to the European values of democracy and the rule of law.
Two Decembers ago, freedom was lost in Afghanistan; this Christmas, it’s at stake in Poland. But the torch of liberty is hot. It warms those who hold it high. It burns those who try to extinguish it.
Story from Hot Air. Please click over and read ALL of Reagan’s speech.
And I’m only here to tell you that I believe with all my heart that our first priority must be world peace, and that use of force is always and only a last resort, when everything else has failed, and then only with regard to our national security. Now, I believe, also, that this meeting this mission, this responsibility for preserving the peace, which I believe is a responsibility peculiar to our country, and that we cannot shirk our responsibility as a leader of the free world because we’re the only ones that can do it. Therefore, the burden of maintaining the peace falls on us. And to maintain that peace requires strength. America has never gotten in a war because we were too strong.
Does this sound like Obama?Does Obama believe this? Can a secular-leftist fight for these ideals?
Does it sound like a man who could win the cold war and liberated millions of people without fighting a world war?
WINTERY KNIGHT 