Abuse Victim Asks Democratic Challenger To Stop Using His Name Falsely Against Opponent: Response- Refused

Video below:



Full story here.

Pass the video around, the election is on April 5, 2011.

.

The Secret Liberals Don't Want You To Know: A Billion Saved Here And A Billion Saved There, Adds Up

Taxes, earmarks, federal pay freezes and government expenditures are all topics of discussion these days and I continue to hear one loud, annoying concentrated chorus from the left; tax the rich.... earmark bans are only a drop in the bucket so why bother, spending freezes for federal workers will only save a couple billion and only save $50 billion over 10 years...etc, etc, etc..

Starting with taxing the rich more than they already pay. Recently it was reported that for every "new dollar of new taxes led to more than one dollar of new spending by Congress."

In the late 1980s, one of us, Richard Vedder, and Lowell Gallaway of Ohio University co-authored a often-cited research paper for the congressional Joint Economic Committee (known as the $1.58 study) that found that every new dollar of new taxes led to more than one dollar of new spending by Congress. Subsequent revisions of the study over the next decade found similar results.

We've updated the research. Using standard statistical analyses that introduce variables to control for business-cycle fluctuations, wars and inflation, we found that over the entire post World War II era through 2009 each dollar of new tax revenue was associated with $1.17 of new spending. Politicians spend the money as fast as it comes in—and a little bit more.

We also looked at different time periods (e.g., 1947-2009 vs. 1959-2009), different financial data (fiscal year federal budget data, as well as calendar year National Income and Product Account data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis), different lag structures (e.g., relating taxes one year to spending change the following year to allow for the time it takes bureaucracies to spend money), different control variables, etc. The alternative models produce different estimates of the tax-spend relationship—between $1.05 and $1.81. But no matter how we configured the data and no matter what variables we examined, higher tax collections never resulted in less spending.

Our politicians spend too much money that we do not have, more than we take in.

This is why conservatives are pushing to cut spending rather than raising taxes or letting the Bush era tax cuts expire. Congress doesn't need more money to spend, they need to stop trying to take more just so that they can spend even more.

Which brings us to earmarks and the recently reported proposal by Republicans which is now being echoed by Barack Obama about freezing federal pay, just as two quick examples.

Because it is in the news today, I will start with the proposed Federal pay freeze which Republicans are for and liberals are coming out, almost in one voice against.

The NYT article reporting on the federal pay freeze proposal showed this:

The number of federal workers making more than $150,000 a year has grown ten-fold in the past five years and doubled since Mr. Obama took office, according to a USA Today study earlier this month. Since 2000, federal pay and benefits have increased 3 percent annually above inflation, compared with 0.8 percent for private sector workers, according to data cited by the newspaper.

From the White House website we see what the proposed savings would be:

This will save $2 billion over the remainder of this fiscal year, $28 billion in cumulative savings over the next five years, and more than $60 billion over the next 10 years. The freeze will apply to all civilian federal employees, including those in various alternative pay plans and those working at the Department of Defense – but not military personnel.

The liberal argument, it is just a drop in the bucket compared to out deficit.

The media starts the chorus, via The Politico:

If Congress endorses the idea, the freeze would save $2 billion in 2011 and roughly $6 billion a year over the next 10 years – a drop in the bucket of the federal budget deficit, which is expected to top $1 trillion this year and next year....

AmSpec expands on the chorus line:

In his press conference, Obama claimed that the move would save the government $28 billion over five years. Taking that number at face value, that would represent a sixth-tenths of one percent reduction in the projected $4.52 trillion deficit over that same period (2011 through 2015). It would be the equivalent of a person who expects to rack up $10,000 of of credit card debt over the next five years touting the fact that he's found a way to reduce his expenses by $60 over that time period. In football terms, it would be like a kickoff return that gains about a half of a yard.

Other liberals hop on the same bandwagon, via TPM:

Michael Linden, a budget expert at the liberal Center for American Progress calls it "small potatoes", and says it doesn't "don't reduce the deficit very much," saying it saves less that the "discretionary spending freeze."

(Side note- Liberals were against the discretionary spending freeze as well because it would only save $35 billion (5%):

Freezing non-defense discretionary spending at current levels would therefore only produce a total savings of $35 billion in 2015. That year, the budget deficit is expected to be around $760 billion. Saving $35 billion would solve less than 5 percent of the problem.

(End side note)

Back to the TPM quotes from liberals against the federal pay freeze.

Larry Mishel, director of the liberal Economic Policy Institute, calls the savings "chump change".

The examples of the progressively liberal left go on endlessly with the same song, drop in the bucket, small in comparison with the deficit, just a fraction of our debt as they try to claim that raising taxes on the rich would help more... I refer you to the above study which already shows the more new tax dollars Congress gets, they spend it, they do not apply it to the debt.

These are the same arguments that were used regarding the Freezing of non-defense discretionary spending and then we move along to the liberal argument on earmark bans.

According to an analysis by Taxpayers for Common Sense, earmarks account for, at most, about $9 billion in projects in the fiscal year 2011 spending bills. Taxpayers for Common Sense identified 3,011 earmarks worth $3 billion in the FY2011 House spending bills and 3,742 earmarks worth $6 billion in the Senate bills.

Liberal politicians, especially those that have benefited from earmarks, like Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who secured $160 million in earmarks this year for 140 projects including hurricane-protection and flood-control needs, stated "I know the Republican caucus is focused on earmarks but that is just one very, very small part of the problem. It not only represents less than 1 percent of the budget; it represents just a fraction of the problem."

Back to that drop in the bucket song.

The sound we heard then and there were liberal bloggers joining in the chorus.

John Cole referring to earmarks as "a nothing-burger when it comes to the budget- less than 1% of the federal budget," ombwatch calls cutting $50 billion a year in earmarks "small in scope," Lou Kaye calls banning earmarks a "complete joke" and again tries to compare it to tax cuts for the wealthy (again I refer her/him to the above study blowing that comparison right out of the water), Rachel Maddow calls banning earmarks "less than one-half of 1 percent. That is a dot on a freckle. That is a fork in an atom."

Her argument is the money is already being taxed, so it saves nothing, just determines where it goes... ummm... if it isn't going to pet projects via earmarks, then it is being spent on essential items so other monies are not having to be slated for those items... hence, saving money Rachel dear.

Those examples too go on and on and on.

Seeing the liberal pattern here? Any cuts in spending are just a drop in the bucket according to them. Liberals want you to look at any cuts as a separate issue, they will use any means, any distraction, to not add them all together and let their readers or constituents know that when you add a billion here a few billion there, tens of billions elsewhere.... wow, it adds up.

Sure individually some of these actions are just a drop in the bucket, but what liberals don't want you to think about it is when a bucket it placed under a leaking faucet, the drip, drip, drip eventually fills that bucket up if it isn't emptied.

.

CNN Finds Democrat's Accusations On GOP Earmarks 'Unfounded'

It is Thanksgiving so I won't be writing a lot of commentary here, but this little fact checking from CNN against the Democrat's accusations that the GOP went against their own ban on earmarks, shows that those accusations are "unfounded" and those trying to push this story are simply being deliberately dishonest.

CNN:

Democratic Party officials are blasting out emails accusing the Senate's second ranking Republican of backtracking on his pledge not to seek earmarks, but a closer look by CNN shows their accusations appear unfounded.

The issue:

$200 million project to provide drinking water for an Indian tribe in Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl's home state of Arizona.

CNN quotes an Obama administration official as to why this is not an earmark:

Dan DuBray, a spokesman for the Bureau of Relocation, part of the Interior Department, says the $200 million was part of a settlement they negotiated with the tribe, and that everyone agreed it was a good idea to pair it with the black farmers' legislation, because by law settlements such as this must be approved by Congress.

"We don't see it as an earmark at all," said Dan DuBray.

Also included in the 272-page legislation are settlements for other Native American groups outside Kyl's state of Arizona: Montana's Crow Tribe and New Mexico's Taos Pueblo and Pojoaque River Basin communities. Democrats Max Baucus (Montana) and Jeff Bingaman (New Mexico) championed funding for those projects.

Also quotes from anti-earmark crusader Steve Ellis, spokesman for the anti-earmark group Taxpayers for Common Sense:

"There's no way Congress (Republican or Democrat) would consider this an official earmark. This does deal with a pay me now or pay me later settlement issue, so Uncle Sam was going to be coming up with the cash whether or not Sen. Kyl got it in".

After winning enough House seats in the midterm elections (63 so far) to take control of the House of Representatives away from Democrats, the GOP, who will be in control of the 112th Congress, approved a ban on earmarks.

Democrats have refused to make the same pledge.


(As just a small example, the $787 plus billion stimulus package was chalk full of earmarks, some listed here and other media reports showing more.)

Earmarks aka Pork:

In American politics, an earmark is a legislative provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects. Earmarking is the term for the process lawmakers use to add funding for "pet projects" to legislation benefiting the lawmakers district.

Lawmakers slip the earmark into other legislation having nothing to do with the projects and get them funded when the legislation is passed.

Taxpayers for Common Sense have a database of FY2010 earmark requests and Washington Watch has a detailed list of Representatives with links to their requested earmarks.

In the past Republicans have been just as guilty of earmarking as Democrats have been and with this GOP ban on earmarks being approved they are symbolically showing voters they understand their concerns and are prepared to address them formally.

It was reported in 2009 that Congress was on pace to spend at least $11 billion on disclosed earmarks for 2010.

$11 billion is just a drop in the bucket in terms of government spending and decreasing the national deficit, but enough drops of water in a bucket will eventually fill it up over the long term and earmarks have become synonymous with wasteful government spending even though some earmarks can benefit many.

Banning earmarks is a baby step but it is a step in the right direction.

.

Foreign Money: Fact Check.Org Intercepts The Democrat's Hail Mary

A Hail Mary pass is a sports term for a football team, desperate to score before the time runs out and they throw a long pass, praying their own team member catches it and scores.

FactCheck.org has analyzed the Democrats and Obama's latest attempt to motivate their base by accusing the Chamber of Commerce of using foreign funds to produce political ads aimed at defeating Republicans going into the November 2, 2010 midterm elections.

Titled "Foreign Money? Really?", sub header "Democrats peddle an unproven claim."

Analysis

As we reported last week in an Ask FactCheck item on this subject, the claim that money from foreign corporations is funding Chamber of Commerce attack ads originated with a Democratic-leaning organization headed by John Podesta, former chief of staff for President Bill Clinton. That report noted that the chamber took in foreign dues (without reporting the amount) and then said that the chamber is "likely skirting longstanding campaign finance law" against foreign spending in U.S. elections. The word "likely" made clear the author was engaging in speculation, which the chamber flatly denied. Tita Freeman, the chamber’s vice president of communications and strategy, told us that money the chamber takes in from foreign corporations "is not used for political ads."

Now others have challenged the claim. The New York Times reported:

New York Times, Oct. 8: [T]here is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents.

In fact, the controversy over the Chamber of Commerce financing may say more about the Washington spin cycle — where an Internet blog posting can be quickly picked up by like-minded groups and become political fodder for the president himself — than it does about the vagaries of campaign finance.

The Times reported, for example, that U.S. subsidiaries of corporations based overseas have set up more than 160 political action committees. The Federal Election Commission states that this is perfectly legal so long as U.S. residents make the decisions and provide all the funds. The Times also noted that groups such as the AFL-CIO and the Sierra Club also have international affiliations. The AFL-CIO has pledged to spend $53 million on the midterm elections, mainly supporting Democrats.

Nevertheless, the Democratic National Committee repeated the foreign-money claim in an ad it released to weekend news shows. It was played on CBS’ "Face the Nation."

They conclude:

It’s certainly true that millions are being spent without public disclosure, and that much of the money is coming from corporations taking advantage of a Supreme Court ruling easing restrictions on political spending. But using foreign funds to finance political ads is still a legal violation. Accusing anybody of violating the law is a serious matter requiring serious evidence to back it up. So far Democrats have produced none.

Obama and Democrats have let desperation make them irresponsible in making accusations they cannot produce evidence to support, although some Democrats are now becoming uncomfortable with those attacks against the Chamber, as reported by LA Times.

Democrats expressing reservations have worked on behalf of moderate candidates with business backing. They recalled past attacks on former President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore for receiving foreign money and warned that White House charges now could lead to GOP reprisals, particularly if Republicans gain control of the House.

"The White House may reap the whirlwind," said one top Democratic staffer. "What are we going to do next year if a Republican Congress is making baseless claims about President Obama? We'll want the media to hold them accountable to the facts and the evidence."

The Democratic staffer and a handful of other prominent Democrats spoke on condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the topic.

ABC News also reports:

Yet while Obama is trying to tie Republicans and some of their backers to the specter of foreign interference in U.S. elections, an examination of the evidence provides little support for the claims.

"We have no idea if the Chamber or any 501(c) organization as defined by the IRS code, is taking foreign money for the purposes of playing politics," said Dave Levinthal of the Center for Responsive Politics. "Saying that that foreign money is actually going toward attack ads or any type of messaging in the political realm, you just don't know. It's speculation and nothing more."

Some funding for the Chamber of Commerce does come from foreign companies and foreign-based Chamber affiliates (called "AmChams") similar in operations of some international nonprofit groups and labor unions.

Chamber of Commerce director of media relations J.P. Fielder said that money goes to the group's general fund and then to the international division, keeping it away from any political activities.

"No foreign money is used to fund our political activities," the Chamber said in a statement, citing the rules established by Congress more than a century ago.

"We are seeing an attempt to demonize specific groups and distract Americans from a failed economic agenda," said the Chamber's vice president for government affairs Bruce Josten of the charges.

Pamela Geller says "Finally":

Finally.

I have been calling for a special prosecutor for years, ever since I exposed the millions Obama received from Muslim nations, Hamas-controlled Gaza and other foreign countries.

David Axelrod has asserted it is the responsibility of the Chamber of Commerce to prove these baseless claims wrong, but Axelrod forgets we live in America where people are innocent until proven guilty and the obligation to prove their claims falls on Obama and Democrats.

Then again, it never was about the ads per se, it was all about Democrats trying to distract American voters from the economic situation and unemployment numbers and to motivate their base to attempt to prevent the landslide that is due to hit them in November.

The attacks against the Chamber of Commerce have another motive behind them as well though and that is to give far left progressive liberals something to cling to to explain the massive loss Democrats and the White House is expecting in November, to their readers.

The spin is already starting because they know what is in store for them.

HEH

Looking at the headlines over at Memeorandum today, I predict this line of unsubstantiated attack on the part of Obama and Democrats, isn't going to go over so well.

LA Times' Top of the ticket- Nearly half of Obama's supporters have now given up on him: poll

The Hill- Gallup poll shows GOP isn't losing steam with likely voters

Fox- Fox News Polls: GOP Sees Senate Chances Improve

New York Times- For Democrats, Even ‘Safe’ Seats Are Shaky

Public Opinion Strategies- The Myth of the Democrat Surge

As Hail Marys go, this one was thrown short, the receiver wasn't even in the right place and the other team intercepted it and is running it back the length of the field to score yet another touchdown with the timeclock ticking down toward the end of the game.

If this is the best that Obama and Democrats could do after so many months of polls showing major GOP gain projections, then they are in more trouble than we originally thought.

.