A Taxing Problem for President Obama

An article from the Associated Press on last quarter's unexpected economic growth presents President Obama a problem. How to keep it going.

"The economy's faster-than-expected growth at the end of last year, fueled by companies boosting output to keep stockpiles up, is likely to weaken as consumers keep a lid on spending.

Many estimate the nation's gross domestic product will grow 2.5 percent to 3 percent in the current quarter and about 2.5 percent or less for the full year."

The economy felt a spurt, but the American people don't want to spend their money to keep it going. How to solve this dilemma?

"The economic recovery could falter if consumers, who account for 70 percent of economic activity, lack the income to ramp up spending."

With unemployment high and expected to "remain close to 10 percent through the end of the year," what can Washington do to spur consumer spending and confidence?

"...for all of last year, workers' compensation rose by the smallest amount on records going back more than a quarter-century."

How to put more money in people's pocket so they will spend the money and keep the economic engine revving up.

If only there were a way to CUT down on the TAXing nature of this problem. If only there were a way to REDUCE how much this problem TAXES our economy. We must LOWER the TAXATION this problem places on the economy in order to SPUR THE ECONOMY.

Do as Feds Say, Not as They Do: Fannie and Freddie Give Bonuses -- Despite Losing Money

This is getting too easy.

Fannie Mae plans to pay retention bonuses of at least $1 million to four key executives as part of a plan to keep hundreds of employees from leaving the government-controlled company.

Fannie lost $59 billion last year and begged $15 billion from the federal government. And the losses are expected to continue:

Fannie Mae's losses are likely to continue, the company said. "We expect the market conditions that contributed to our net loss for each quarter of 2008 to continue and possibly worsen in 2009," the company said.

But, despite the catastrophic losses, Fannie plans to dole out "retention bonuses of at least $1 million to four key executives."

In response to this "federally run mortgage giant" paying bonuses to executives who helped drive the company deep into the red, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) demanded of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner: "It is time that we stop rewarding failure."

No. I am sorry. Cummings said that about AIG; he has been silent on the Fannie bonuses.

Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-MA angrily compared the Fannie bonuses to "the captain and the crew of the ship reserving the lifeboats."

Ooops. Lynch was criticizing AIG too. I am sure he will be out there protecting the tax payers from the Fannie bonuses any day now.

TV talking heads are chattering about these "retention" bonuses; why pay a retention bonus to anyone in this economy? Where else are these people going to work?

Ugh; that was AIG, too, huh?

Meanwhile, over at Freddie Mac, the other "federally run mortgage giant," bonuses are on the way too. Like sister Fannie, Freddie has lost tons of money -- $50 billion last year alone. And keeping in the family tradition, Freddie came to Washington with hands out, hands much larger than Fannie.

However, unlike Fannie, Freddie has yet to disclose the amount of the bonuses and to whom they are being paid.

Old friend Barney Frank (D-MA) was quick to demand the names of the executives receiving the money:

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the Financial Services Committee, demanded that the company submit to Congress a list "of people who received the bonuses..." If the names were not provided "without restriction," Frank warned, he would ask the committee to vote to subpoena them.

"We do intend to use our power to get the names," Frank wheezed in anger.

Ooops, I did it again! If you couldn't guess, Frank wasn't talking about Freddie Mac.

Well, members of Congress stumbled over each other to get the tax payers' money back from the Freddie executives:

"Recipients of these bonuses will not be able to keep all of their money," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said.

"If you don't return it on your own, we will do it for you," echoed Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "So for those of you who are getting these bonuses, be forewarned -- you will not be getting to keep them."

Darn it. AIG.

It must be the late hour. I keep expecting the same voices who condemned AIG for handing out bonuses despite the company losing money to be railing against Fannie and Freddie for handing out bonuses despite the company losing money.

I just know that the Democratic power elite will not stand by as Freddie and Fannie spend tax payer bailout funds on big-buck bonuses for a few rich executives.

Right?

I best not hold my breath....

AIG Outrage: DON'T FALL FOR IT!!!!

A magician is successful if he can distract your attention from what he is really doing; it's called sleight of hand. He does something with his right hand so you don't see what he is doing with his left hand.

That is what this fabricated outrage over the AIG bonuses is: it is sleight of hand; it is a distraction that Obama and his fellow Liberals are trying to pull over your eyes so you don't see what he is really doing.

Some estimates have Obama's spending costing this country $9 trillion dollars. That's $9,000,000,000,000. The ultimate cost of the $800 billion "stimulus" package is estimated to be over $3 trillion. That's $3,250,000,000,000.

Obama is getting all choked up with anger over $165 million handed out through legally binding contracts to executives at AIG. Are you joking Barack?

According to AIG, they were advised that not only are they obligated to pay by March 15, but if they try to ignore the contracts, the penalty is paying double. AIG says the Connecticut Wage Act, as well as employment laws in France, Japan, the U.K. and Hong Kong, could give employees legal recourse to quit and sue.

The U.S. government has given AIG $170 billion in recent months. These bonus that have everyone in such a tizzy represent less than 1% of the money! Where is the outrage that the Feds spent $170 billion of OUR money to prop up this company?

Where is the outrage that we gave $25 billion to General Motors only to have them come back for more?

Where is the outrage at Obama spending $800 billion on this so-called "stimulus" package, only to have Nancy Pelosi call for ANOTHER "stimlus" package.

If you are angry with AIG over the way they are spending this tiny fraction of bailout funds (assuming the money for these contracts was not already put aside, and not coming from the bailout), then you are being duped. Taken for a fool. A sucker.

The O-bots tried to distract us for a couple of weeks with pumped-up anger at radio and television talk-show hosts. That failed.

Now, they are trying to get us all hot-and-bothered that a company would actually honor contracts to its employees.

We have members of Congress actually planning to use the U.S. tax code to target specific individuals. This is absolutely unprecedented and anti-constitutional, if not outright UN-constitutional.

Don't fall for the shell game. Don't fall for the smoke and mirrors.

Don't be hoodwinked by this administration and it's radical left-wing goons who want you to think that honoring a legally-binding contract is somehow evil and wrong.

Whether or not these AIG clowns "deserve" this money is not ours for debate. They are owed this money and any move by the Democrats to steal it back is what is evil and wrong.

"It is time that we stop rewarding failure," Rep. Elijah Cummings wrote in a letter Monday to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.

I couldn't agree more. How about we start by getting rid of the program to bail out people who don't pay their mortgage.

Obama Admits His Socialist/Marxist Policies

As I told you several weeks ago, Sen. Barack Obama is finally coming to terms with his Marxist/Socialist tendencies.

In a now-famous conversation with gentlemen come to be known as "Joe the Plumber," Obama said this:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Well, not exactly. That was Karl Marx, the philosopher upon whose thinking Communism has developed. Barack is not that far away from Marx.

Joe, it seems, wants to buy the plumbing business where he has worked. However, he fears, in his new position, Obama's tax plans would cost Joe dearly.

It's not that I want to punish your success, Obama told Joe. But, Obama will punish Joe anyway.

This country was was built and has thrived on individuals who work hard and take chances. Obama wants to punish those individuals for those very actions.

I don't mind paying a little more (in taxes), Obama told the crowd at the third presidential debate. Good for you, Barack. You do that; you pay more and leave the rest of us alone. That is what charities are for. Of course, Barack don't know much about charity.

At least no one can question Obama's patriotism!

I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody, he told Joe.

Obama is finally admitting -- in his own words -- that he wants to take money from people who are successful and give it to those who are less-so.

Maybe we should leave Joe alone and let him spread his wealth to his employees for putting in a hard day's work instead of turning the "wealth" over to the government to distribute as they see fit!

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Or, to think of it in another way: Those who can, pay more taxes; those who can't, get more handouts.

Obama's Plans to Kill the Economy and Cause a Depression

Barack Obama's economic proposals are wrong for the American economy. They defy both economic reason and economic experience.

In the election campaign of 2008, the economy and foreign policy are paramount with the candidates and the voters as well. The first two presidential debates focused almost exclusively in these two areas, with the second debate squarely centered on the economy as the U.S. was in the midst of a major financial meltdown.

Having the economy top-most on the voters minds should, and seems to be, benefiting Sen. Barack Obama; polls show the American people favor Barack as the savior of the country's economic future.

However, will Obama's policies fix the flagging economy or make it worse?

Sen. John McCain is trying, albeit likely too late, to charge that Obama's formula for economic recovery will not work, and will in fact plunge the economy deeper into recession, or worse.

A collective of 100 "distinguished and experienced" economists have signed onto a letter, released by the John McCain campaign, stating that Obama's policies will -- and already have -- hurt the U.S. economy.

These economists all agree:

• Obama's dividend and capital gains tax increases would reduce investment and cut into the savings of millions of Americans.
• His proposals to increase income and payroll tax rates would discourage the formation and expansion of small businesses and reduce employment and take-home pay,
• His mandates on firms to provide expensive health insurance (would reduce employment and take-home pay).

"Economic analysis and historical experience show that (Obama's proposals)... would reduce economic growth and decrease the number of jobs in America. (H)is proposals run a high risk of throwing the economy into a deep recession."

Obama plans to increase taxes on the "wealthy" -- including most small businesses, capital gains, oil, and other sources in order to finance a stimulus package for the, um non-wealthy, despite the fact that the Bush stimulus package from earlier this year has had limited impact on the economy.

"What we're seeing is a mild recession interrupted here by a rebate program," said David Wyss, chief economist for the rating agency Standard & Poor's in New York this week. "Once they (consumers) finish spending these checks, we'll head down again." (paragrah 11)

Most historians agree: An increase in the tax rates and additional barriers to trade, which raised tarriffs on lower-priced imported goods, helped prolong the Great Depression. (paragraph 14)

Surprisingly, Obama also plans to fight for increased restriction and regulation on trade. He opposes the planned Columbia free-trade agreement and the signed Central American Free Trade Agreement for fear that these pacts will not "spread good labor and environmental standards around the world."

Free trade, say the 100 economists, "make goods available to Americans at lower prices and are a particular benefit to families and individuals with low incomes." In addition, they write, International trade is "a powerful source of strength in a weak economy."

If this is true, is Obama really willing to cause more pain to the "families and individuals with low incomes" in America in an attempt to "spread good labor and environmental standards" to those in other countries?

According to these experts:

• Obama's opposition to trade agreements (with Colombia and Central America and renegotiating NAFTA) would block the creation of jobs for Americans these treaties would likely product.
• His opposition to trade treaties would reduce imports that would make goods available to Americans at lower prices, particularly hurting low-income families and individuals.
  

Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund agrees: "Most of the leading economists (during the Great Depression) opposed (restricting free trade); both Congress and President Hoover went along with the protectionist hysteria. As a result, the Great Depression was probably deepened and extended for years."

If history is a guide, then one must ask: Will Obama's economic plans kill the economy and even cause a depression?

Is there any wonder that as Sen. Barack Obama's odds of winning the U.S. presidency are increasing, the stock market in plunging? Or is that just a coincidence?