2012 Presidential Election

“Barack Obama has not put anyone on food stamps.” So hysterically wrote Barbra Streisand at the Huffington Post Friday evening: [R]ecently in a debate moderated by Fox News analyst, Juan Williams, Gingrich was questioned about controversial remarks he had made about poverty and African Americans. Gingrich had previously said black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps. Juan Williams attempted to coax Gingrich into acknowledging that he was playing racial politics. To which Gingrich responded untruthfully that, “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.” And there ended that portion of the debate with Gingrich receiving deafening applause from the audience, looking strong and principled. What Juan Williams failed to point out in that moment is that Barack Obama has not put anyone on food stamps. The grossly irresponsible and greedy practices of those on Wall Street, which led to the subsequent crash of the housing market, created the most severe recession our country has experienced since the Great Depression (which Obama inherited from George W. Bush when he entered office). These events, along with the continuous deregulation of our financial sector, conspired to make a record number of people eligible for government food assistance. Juan Williams completely missed this important opportunity to reveal the real truth behind Gingrich's racist assertions. In Streisand's warped view, the unprecedented rise in food stamp recipients the past three years is all Bush's fault. Yet, job gains the past 23 months are because of Obama's policies: The truth is, President Obama's leadership on the stimulus, bringing the auto industry back from the brink of collapse, adding nearly 3.7 million private sector jobs in 23 consecutive months of job growth proves that our country is moving in the right direction. Because of the President's policies, our economy is on the road to recovery and it's time we start celebrating the truth. So let's assume it took thirteen months for Obama's policies to take hold, and that he should only be judged on what's happened since the job market bottomed. Shouldn't that apply to people on food stamps as well? As the United States Department of Agriculture reports , there were 39.6 million people on food stamps in February 2010. As of November 2011, there were 46.1 million, an increase of 6.5 million. Are these Bush's fault too? If Obama gets credit for the rise in private sector jobs in the past 23 months, shouldn't he be blamed for the increase in food stamps recipients during the same period? I doubt such logic would meet with Streisand's acceptance. On a related noted, the actress that played Funny Girl showed that she still has a sense of humor writing, “Journalists need to stand strong and do their job, which is to challenge candidates immediately when they are purposefully misleading the public.” I guess she doesn't realize that if journalists did this, a Democrat would never be elected to public office anywhere in the country. That goes doubly for her loves Bill Clinton and Barack Obama who would never have gotten near the White House except as part of a guided tour if America's press did their job. But thanks for the laugh, Fanny. Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.

View original post here:
Barbra Streisand: ‘Barack Obama Has Not Put Anyone on Food Stamps’

MSNBC's Thomas Roberts isn't even trying anymore to be an objective journalist. Yesterday's passage of a right-to-work bill in Indiana was a measure “stripping the state of union rights,” Roberts insisted during the 11 a.m. Eastern hour of MSNBC programming. “That makes Indiana not just the 23rd union-busting state, but the first new right-to-work state in ten years,” the anchor noted as he introduced right-to-work opponent Indiana State Senator Vi Simpson (D). What follows are Roberts's questions to Simpson: As we were looking at those images, and I want to show them again, there are thousands of workers that are marching on Lucas [Oil] Stadium and the Super Bowl village there, Gov. Daniels didn't waste the time, signing this measure, but, tell us about the impact of this bill and what can be done to reverse it at this point with such an outcry? As we talk about the political landscape, Democrats are the minority in Indiana's legislature. You tried to stall the vote as I understand it, by boycotting it, on and off to push it closer to this Sunday's big game. So are you hoping this publicity of the Super Bowl and the outcry that we're seeing by these protesters will give this more of a national story, national clout? As we look at this as a national issue, there are Republicans in Arizona, they're pushing a bill to ban collective bargaining. This following in Wisconsin's footsteps. Is this setting the stage for a recall effort in Indiana, do you think, against Mitch Daniels, like they're doing with the governor, Scott Walker, in Wisconsin? Well, certainly a lot of eyes, you have the attention of the country for the Super Bowl [this Sunday in Indianapolis], so we'll see what comes out of the protests that are taking place there. Indiana State Senator and Democratic leader Vi Simpson. Thanks for joining me this morning, I appreciate it. You'll notice there are no critical questions of Simpson from the right or any representations of the conservative argument for right-to-work. What's more, Roberts failed to bring on a state legislator or other Indiana official who supports the right-to-work legislation to balance out Simpson, although he told viewers that Gov. Daniels would be interviewed in the 1 p.m. Eastern hour on Andrea Mitchell Reports. But for her part, Mitchell devoted her opening two questions to the upcoming Super Bowl in Indianapolis and the rest of the interview to the 2012 Republican presidential primaries, including a question about whether Daniels holds open the possibility of jumping into the presidential race.

Read the original here:
MSNBC’s Roberts: Indiana’s New Right-to-Work Statute a Blow to ‘Union Rights’

Fantasy. Today, Politico’s Jim VandeHei reports that economic indicators should have Barack Obama worried about his re-election prospects, not more sanguine.  VandeHei relies heavily on this week’s economic and deficit projections from the CBO, but perhaps not heavily enough: A new CBO report grabbed lots of headlines for projecting the deficit will top $1 trillion this Read this post

And by you I meant you , not me. For it turns out that people working for the federal government with high school and college degrees do, in fact, make more than those with similar educations in the private sector. But those of us with advanced degrees? Not so much : The CBO found that the advantage federal workers enjoy varies by educational level. For those with only a high-school degree , workers earned 21 percent more and were given benefits worth 72 percent more than in the private sector . For college graduates , wages were about the same but benefits were 46 percent better in the government . Meanwhile for a dvanced degree holders , wages were 23 percent less than in the private sector and benefits were about the same. Clearly I need to get into the private sector! Why would those with the least amount of education make so much more working for the federal government? It’s the perfect confluence of the Democratic parties constituencies: those dependent on labor unions and those dependent on government.

Follow this link:
Confirmed: Government Employess Do Make More Than You

(Steven Hayward) With his typically inimitable and lucid prose, James Q. Wilson appears in today’s Outlook section of the Washington Post today with a clear-eyed deconstruction of the whole inequality blather of the left: “ Angry About Inequality?  Don’t Blame the Rich. ”  Aw, what fun is that ? There’s a lot packed into this relatively short article, so you should read the whole thing.  But I like the punch line to this paragraph: Income inequality has increased in this country and in practically every European nation in recent decades. The best measure of that change is the Gini index, named after the Italian statistician Corrado Gini, who designed it in 1912. The index values vary between zero, when everyone has exactly the same income, and 1, when one person has all of the income and everybody else has none. In mid-1970s America, the index was 0.316, but it had reached 0.378 by the late 2000s. One of the few nations to see its Gini value fall was Greece, which went from 0.413 in the 1970s to 0.307 in the late 2000s. So Greece seems to be reducing income inequality — but with little to buy, riots in the streets and economic opportunity largely limited to those partaking in corruption, the nation is hardly a model for anyone’s economy. Oh goody: Greece is the only nation that the Occupy Wall Street crowd probably approves of right now.  That’s working out real well for everybody. I recall that William F. Buckley Jr. used to like to quote the words of the socialist Amnon Rubinstein, who once admitted in debate: “On the whole, those systems that have put liberty ahead of equality have done better by equality than those that have put equality above liberty.” Someone needs to tell this to the President.

Link:
James Q. To The Rescue

A report carried at CBS News in St. Louis from Jim Anderson of the Illinois Radio Network (IRN), which appears to be a private entity , tells readers that a research study ( summary ; PDF of relevant chapter) published by the Institute of Government and Public Affairs (IGPA) at the University of Illinois has identified “a combination of tough policies (which) could bring the state into fiscal balance by the end of the decade.” To be clear, the end of the decade is seven years and eleven months from now. Predictably, the “tough policies” include “maintaining increased income tax rates after they are scheduled to expire.” On the spending side, what IGPA describes as “extreme austerity” means “keeping the growth rate of all spending down to 2.1 percent per year.” Those who would rather not look at IGPA's detail can be forgiven, because the opening paragraph of the linked chapter above, which IRN did not cite, gives away the researchers' detachment from reality: Illinois ended 2011 with a better financial situation than it faced a year earlier. However, the state began the year with a hole so deep that not even a massive tax increase and drastic spending cuts could come close to filling it. In your dreams, guys. The 67% and 45% “temporary” increases in personal and corporate income-tax rates passed earlier this year — increases which, according to Governor Pat Quinn, would prevent the state from “careening towards bankruptcy” — have not created a “better financial situation.” The credit markets agree. The state's credit rating, recently downgraded, is the worst in the nation . There's also this odd sentence at the end of the IRN report: “The state’s operating budget is close to balanced, (Univ. of Illinois Economist Richard) Dye said, but the state has $8.1 billion in unpaid bills, according to the state comptroller, and more than $80 billion in unfunded pension obligations.” That gives me the impression that the state has “balanced” its cash-based operating budget by falling further behind in paying its bills. This is a “better financial situation”? It's worth recalling predictions establishment press types swallowed whole when the tax increases became law about their supposedly inconsequential impact on employment and company relocation (bolds are nine): J. Fred Giertz, a University of Illinois economics professor, says an immediate exodus isn't likely. Companies, he says, weigh workforce availability, transportation and other factors when deciding where to build or expand. “Our state is close to insolvency, and they don't like that either,” he says. “An immediate job killer? Not likely,” says Ed Morrison, economic policy adviser at Indiana's Purdue Center for Regional Development. “Much more important is regaining financial stability.” Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by “immediate.” Unemployment didn't increase the next day. But at the time the tax increase was passed, the unemployment rate in Illinois was 9.2%, which was lower than that of Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Missouri. By the end of 2011, the unemployment rate in the financially stinkin' Land of Lincoln was 9.8%, higher than every state just mentioned — yes, even including Michigan (9.3%). Job growth didn't stop “immediately,” either, but in the final ten months of 2011, the Illinois economy added only 8,000 seasonally adjusted jobs. Companies on the whole aren't hiring, it's likely that many are leaving, and the state is having to bribe some larger companies to stay with incentives and tax abatements. I can't wait for the IGPA's superlatives if the state's unemployment rate gets above 10% and the backlog of unpaid bills hits $10 billion. There is someone who got it right : John Tillman, CEO of the Illinois Policy Institute, a non-partisan research group dedicated to free-market principles, says the tax increases could cost 268,000 jobs over the next three to five years. “When you raise the cost of doing business,” he says, “people vote with their feet.” Given the employment growth in other states during 2011, particularly Ohio and Michigan, it's perfectly reasonable to believe that Illinois employment should have increased by at least 50,000 during the final ten months of 2011. The other “experts” above who made dumber-than-a-box-of-rocks predictions any child should have been able to see through should lose their credibility as news story sources. But they won't. At Dollar Collapse (HT Instapundit ), John Rubino asks: “Why Isn’t Illinois A Bigger Story Than Greece?” Good question, especially given that Illinois has more residents. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Excerpt from:
Univ. of Ill. Research Org, As Unemployment Hits Almost 10%: State ‘In Better Financial Situation’

A report carried at CBS News in St. Louis from Jim Anderson of the Illinois Radio Network (IRN), which appears to be a private entity , tells readers that a research study ( summary ; PDF of relevant chapter) published by the Institute of Government and Public Affairs (IGPA) at the University of Illinois has identified “a combination of tough policies (which) could bring the state into fiscal balance by the end of the decade.” To be clear, the end of the decade is seven years and eleven months from now. Predictably, the “tough policies” include “maintaining increased income tax rates after they are scheduled to expire.” On the spending side, what IGPA describes as “extreme austerity” means “keeping the growth rate of all spending down to 2.1 percent per year.” Those who would rather not look at IGPA's detail can be forgiven, because the opening paragraph of the linked chapter above, which IRN did not cite, gives away the researchers' detachment from reality: Illinois ended 2011 with a better financial situation than it faced a year earlier. However, the state began the year with a hole so deep that not even a massive tax increase and drastic spending cuts could come close to filling it. In your dreams, guys. The 67% and 45% “temporary” increases in personal and corporate income-tax rates passed earlier this year — increases which, according to Governor Pat Quinn, would prevent the state from “careening towards bankruptcy” — have not created a “better financial situation.” The credit markets agree. The state's credit rating, recently downgraded, is the worst in the nation . There's also this odd sentence at the end of the IRN report: “The state’s operating budget is close to balanced, (Univ. of Illinois Economist Richard) Dye said, but the state has $8.1 billion in unpaid bills, according to the state comptroller, and more than $80 billion in unfunded pension obligations.” That gives me the impression that the state has “balanced” its cash-based operating budget by falling further behind in paying its bills. This is a “better financial situation”? It's worth recalling predictions establishment press types swallowed whole when the tax increases became law about their supposedly inconsequential impact on employment and company relocation (bolds are nine): J. Fred Giertz, a University of Illinois economics professor, says an immediate exodus isn't likely. Companies, he says, weigh workforce availability, transportation and other factors when deciding where to build or expand. “Our state is close to insolvency, and they don't like that either,” he says. “An immediate job killer? Not likely,” says Ed Morrison, economic policy adviser at Indiana's Purdue Center for Regional Development. “Much more important is regaining financial stability.” Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by “immediate.” Unemployment didn't increase the next day. But at the time the tax increase was passed, the unemployment rate in Illinois was 9.2%, which was lower than that of Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Missouri. By the end of 2011, the unemployment rate in the financially stinkin' Land of Lincoln was 9.8%, higher than every state just mentioned — yes, even including Michigan (9.3%). Job growth didn't stop “immediately,” either, but in the final ten months of 2011, the Illinois economy added only 8,000 seasonally adjusted jobs. Companies on the whole aren't hiring, it's likely that many are leaving, and the state is having to bribe some larger companies to stay with incentives and tax abatements. I can't wait for the IGPA's superlatives if the state's unemployment rate gets above 10% and the backlog of unpaid bills hits $10 billion. There is someone who got it right : John Tillman, CEO of the Illinois Policy Institute, a non-partisan research group dedicated to free-market principles, says the tax increases could cost 268,000 jobs over the next three to five years. “When you raise the cost of doing business,” he says, “people vote with their feet.” Given the employment growth in other states during 2011, particularly Ohio and Michigan, it's perfectly reasonable to believe that Illinois employment should have increased by at least 50,000 during the final ten months of 2011. The other “experts” above who made dumber-than-a-box-of-rocks predictions any child should have been able to see through should lose their credibility as news story sources. But they won't. At Dollar Collapse (HT Instapundit ), John Rubino asks: “Why Isn’t Illinois A Bigger Story Than Greece?” Good question, especially given that Illinois has more residents. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

See the article here:
Univ. of Ill. Research Org, As Unemployment Hits Almost 10%: State ‘In Better Financial Situation’

When gas prices get high, politicians love to blame the financial speculators for driving the price up. On Saturday morning, CNN's Josh Levs reported that “we have analysts telling us to get ready for national average around $4.25. That's spring. Summer, that's when it could go higher, $5 could happen in some cities.” What might high gas prices mean for the 2012 campaign? Or how might the fears of high gas prices drive government policy? Will Team Obama really go easy on upsetting Iran to avoid scaring up oil prices? CHRISTIE PAUL, anchor: Well, get ready to shell out even more at the gas pump. And please don't hurt me because I'm telling you what it says. I'm not doing it on purpose. Gas prices may spike to an all-time high. I know you're cringing. I'm cringing. Analysts say it could top $4 a gallon. That's the average. Josh Levs to talk us through. So what the heck is going on? JOSH LEVS, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Always the bearer of good news. We talked earlier that analysts are saying Chicago and other places could potentially see $5. It's unbelievable what we're talking about. So here's the basic idea. You know what's spiking gas prices? Think of gas prices as like a dartboard. It catches a lot of the stories. In 2011 we had the highest average for the year ever. Let's break this down, what's happening to your money. This is what determines gas prices here. The biggest factor by far is crude oil, just how much of this dollar goes to crude ferries. Next, you have refining. That's where the oil companies make a lot of their money. And then distribution and marketing, that includes what the gas stations make. Finally, taxes. Those vary by state. That's where the dollar goes now. What's driving prices up? You've about got a bunch of factors that come together to make that happen. Some, of it is increasing demand from many countries with growing populations and middle class, or where economy has been recovering. Also instability in oil producing nations places like Libya, Yemen, Syria, that led to less oil production. So you've got supply and demand playing out. There are other values playing out, the value of the dollar and speculation where people are buying up oil futures. Those can affect the prices. The government says 2012 could be even more eventful. And one big reason there is Iran. Many countries are embargoing its oil. Iran is threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz. About a fifth of the oil today worldwide goes through there. So if U.S. and other countries keep seeing economic growth, more people driving on the streets, we'll need more gas lines. I'll have more on my Facebook page. So we're talking about a perfect storm that could come together. PAUL: Just hit us with it. I mean give us a number so we know what to expect. And I know that it's hard to do that because you're prognosticating, but what are you hearing? LEVS: I will say some analysts are a little more hopeful that prices could actually come down, but when you look at what the national average is expected to be, we have analysts telling us to get ready for national average around $4.25. That's spring. Summer, that's when it could go higher, $5 could happen in some cities. PAUL: I think I'm staying home this summer. LEVS: More people might do it. It should be said that the media have projected about 23 of the last three oil price hikes over the last few years, so add a grain of salt. But even the fear of higher prices causes a political ripple.

Originally posted here:
CNN Projects Gas Prices Rising to $4.25 to $5 a Gallon

The ignorance of HBO's Bill Maher was oozing from every nook and cranny of his being Friday night. After telling his Real Time audience that the national debt has only gone up by $1.5 trillion under Obama, the host during the Overtime segment actually said, “Mitt Romney we found out made $27 million, only paid 11 percent in taxes” (video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary, first relevant section at 4:00): Readers are reminded that this is information just revealed Tuesday and Maher still can't get it right. As NewsBusters reported , Romney in 2009 had Adjusted Gross Income of $21.6 million and paid federal taxes at a 13.9 percent rate. Maher was wrong on both counts. I guess these numbers came out so long ago he couldn't attain the precise ones to put on his index card. As an added bonus, a few minutes earlier at the 1:45 mark, Maher said to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.): “You were in Congress in the ’90s. You came in in ’89. Clinton came in in ’93. There was a tax, a small tax raise that he put forward that not one Republican voted for. The economy turned around. Turned out that that tax raise really did a lot of good things for the economy.” First of all, that wasn't a small tax increase. At the time it was the largest tax hike in American history. As for it turning around the economy, it had actually been growing since the second quarter of 1991 and was starting to explode by the time Clinton was inaugurated. What Maher and the rest of his liberal colleagues refuse to acknowledge is that the Gross Domestic Product grew by 2.7 percent in the second quarter of 1991 followed by gains of 1.7 percent and 1.6 percent in the next two quarters. Surely, this was not explosive growth by any means, but it signaled that the recession had ended in the first quarter of 1991, an immutable fact supported by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the entity charged with deciding such things.

How many times have you watched a political talk show and just couldn't imagine the nonsense coming out of some liberal pundit's mouth? On PBS's McLaughlin Group Friday, Newsweek's Eleanor Clift said something so absolutely absurd about tax cuts that U.S. News and World Report's Mort Zuckerman did a double facepalm on camera in disbelief (video follows with transcript and commentary): ELEANOR CLIFT: The capital gains has not always been at 15 percent. You know, when Reagan came to town, the marginal rates were very high, and he got money as a movie actor, so he wanted to bring those down which he did. When the Bushes came into office, they wanted to reduce capital gains because a lot of their money came from investment income. The 15 percent, [Camera pans to Zuckerman doing double facepalm], the 15 percent we arrived at when W. Bush was in office, and it has not always been that low. Got that? Reagan and Bush only cut taxes to help themselves. It had nothing to do with stimulating the economy. I agree with Mort. Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.

See the original post:
Eleanor Clift Says Something So Dumb Mort Zuckerman Does Double Facepalm In Disbelief