AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

To: all those Conservatives who claim the Democrats used the Filibuster as much as the Republicans

From: Reality

Subject: Lay off the crack



http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/our-broken-senate

Good enough proof for you guys? The Republicans are the KINGS of obstructionism in Congress. It's getting to the point where I would consider supporting the so-called 'nuclear option' just to get rid of the time wasting assholes on the Republican side.

Cycloptichorn

Obama's Policies and the U.S. Consumer
By Mitchell P. Corwin, CFA, CPA | 03-27-09 | 06:00 AM
Over the past two weeks my colleagues have sliced and diced the Obama 10-year budget plan, analyzing the broad business impact as well as the likely effect on a sector-by-sector basis. While the proposed budget directly affects each sector in specific ways, when it comes to consumers and consumer-driven companies, the impact of the budget is both direct and indirect.


Higher Costs for Everyone
In an effort to offset massive increases in government spending, President Obama is counting on a number of net tax increases. One big one is lifting tax incentives on energy producers. In a recent Stock Analyst Note, my colleague Justin Perucki described the significantly detrimental effect this would have on independent producers. Not surprisingly, he concluded that higher taxes would inevitably be passed along to consumers in the form of higher oil and gas prices. The budget also calls for raising revenue through the sale of carbon permits, which would also likely lead to greater utility prices. In the president's own words, "under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." If the president gets his way, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that consumers will see much higher prices for electricity, for home heating, and at the pump.

Although agricultural commodities peaked in mid-2008, prices for food and other consumer staples remain elevated as consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies seek to regain as much of their lost margins as possible. Consumers are still paying much higher prices for Cheerios and Tide today than they were a few years ago. The president's budget calls for reductions in agricultural subsidies but does not call for any changes to the Renewable Fuels Standard. In the recent article "Proposed Budget Shouldn't Kill Big Ag's Profits", Morningstar analyst Elizabeth Collins discussed how she thinks the agricultural sector would fare in light of the president's proposals. Although she doesn't think there would be much of an impact on the agricultural sector as a whole, she takes the view that the continued diversion of corn to ethanol will support high corn prices and high prices for other agricultural commodities. The budget only supports our view that once the economy recovers, we will be back in a world of rising commodity prices that will make our everyday goods--from breakfast cereal to laundry detergent--more expensive.

Tax Relief for Lower and Middle Brackets
Although all consumers will likely see their monthly costs rise under President Obama's budget plan, lower- to middle-income consumers get somewhat of a break in the form of modest tax cuts. High-earners aren't so fortunate, as their income taxes rise and deductions fall. Morningstar associate director of economic analysis Robert Johnson discussed the specifics in his recent article, "Roadmap to the Budget Plan". More taxes on high-earning households will inevitably make them feel poorer and adjust their spending accordingly, and this isn't a good sign for luxury retailers over the long run.


Obama's Policies and the U.S. Consumer -- Page 2

Labor Costs Rise
Unions played a big part in the success of President Obama's candidacy, and the president seems to want to return the favor. In addition to the increased funding for the Department of Labor, which appeared to be an afterthought in the Bush administration, the president has come out squarely behind the Employee Free Choice Act. This gives retailers a high degree of heartburn. Larger retailers that depend on cheap labor to help keep prices low--such as Wal-Mart (WMT) and Home Depot (HD )
may be at risk of losing a big part of their edge over competitors.


A reinvigorated Department of Labor could be a headache, but the threat of successful unionization (made more possible by the Employee Free Choice Act) is particularly concerning to these companies and their investors. Throw in a minimum wage hike, and you're talking about substantially higher labor costs. Wages comprise the bulk of operating costs for retailers, and cheaper labor is a major reason why Wal-Mart has been able to maintain a low cost structure that has given it the means to dominate individual categories like toys and food. Today Wal-Mart is the nation's largest grocer and its low prices are enabling it to continue to build market share against supermarkets, as consumers prioritize price in these tough economic times.
Should Wal-Mart become unionized, the company would likely either have to raise prices to cover increased costs and lost productivity (and risk ceding market share to rivals), or keep prices low and sacrifice margins. This would be a significant boon to the nation's already-unionized grocery stores, such as Kroger (KR

If the union bill passes in its current form (which we think is unlikely, at this point), we would have to reconsider moat ratings for most grocers.
Ultimately the Employee Free Choice Act may pass, but it's anyone's guess what the final bill will look like. Given that even some Senate Democrats are publicly expressing concerns about the impact this bill could have on a struggling economy, it could either die quietly, or end up watered down to the point where big-box stores could continue to successfully keep unions at bay.
How It All Shakes Out
When it comes to the consumer, we think the Obama budget signals tougher times ahead for the upper middle class and above, but it's not clear that low- to middle-end consumers would see much of a net benefit. Tax relief and more government financial support (such as health care) should help their pocketbooks and sentiment. However, these benefits may be offset by rising prices for energy and basic necessities. If spending increases from low- to middle-end consumers are only moderate, and the more affluent spend significantly less, we would be concerned about products and retailers that rely on discretionary spending--including luxury retailers such as Tiffany (TIFTIF), high-ticket goods like cars, and even everyday products from moderately priced specialty retailers and department stores. We would still feel pretty good about prospects for CPG companies like PepsiCo (PEPPEP) and Proctor & Gamble (PGPG), but there is certainly the risk that consumers will continue to trade down to lower-end brands or private-label brands.
We believe the threat of greater unionization under President Obama's labor policies would bode very poorly for big-box retailers that have large workforces, lower wages, and likely have large targets on their backs from unions. Unions consider Wal-Mart the biggest prize, but Target's wages are similar to Wal-Mart's and plenty of others would not feel safe in the type of environment where unions are emboldened. The only likely beneficiaries of this policy would be the unionized grocery stores.

Mitchell Corwin, CFA, CPA, is a senior stock analyst with Morningstar.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

To: all those Conservatives who claim the Democrats used the Filibuster as much as the Republicans

From: Reality

Subject: Lay off the crack



http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/our-broken-senate

Good enough proof for you guys? The Republicans are the KINGS of obstructionism in Congress. It's getting to the point where I would consider supporting the so-called 'nuclear option' just to get rid of the time wasting assholes on the Republican side.

Cycloptichorn

I think you should examine your data more carefully. You appear to have it backwards.

I just came up with a scathingly brilliant idea:

Why doesn't President Obama put ALL the Democrats on the cabinet? The back taxes should cover the budget shortfall and he can do anything he wants.

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Health and Human Services nominee Kathleen Sebelius recently corrected three years of tax returns and paid more than $7,000 in back taxes after finding "unintentional errors""the latest tax troubles for an Obama administration nominee. The Kansas governor explained the changes to senators in a letter dated Tuesday that the administration released. She said they involved charitable contributions, the sale of a home and business expenses.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979AVVO2&show_article=1

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's interesting to note that "only" Foxie sees Obama exceeding his Constitutional authority, but no other MAC or conservative leadership sees it.

You continually fail to understand that the Constitution is a granting of specific powers to the federal government. If the federal government exercises a power not granted in the Constitution, then the federal government is violating the Constitution. The 10th Amendment makes it clear that powers not granted by the Constitution to the federal government, are powers the federal government does not legally have.

APRIL 1, 2009

The GOP's Alternative Budget
President Obama offers us the option of European big government.
By PAUL D. RYAN

Today, the House of Representatives will consider two budget plans that represent dramatically different visions for our nation's future.
We will first consider President Barack Obama's plan. To be clear, this is no ordinary budget. In a nutshell, the president and Democratic leaders in Congress are attempting to bring about the third and final great wave of progressivism, building on top of the New Deal and the Great Society. So America is placed in a special moment in our history -- brought about by the deep recession, Mr. Obama's ambitious agenda, and the pending fiscal tidal-wave of red ink brought forward by the looming insolvency of our entitlement programs. If this agenda comes to pass, it will mark this period in history as the moment America turned European.
House Republicans will offer an alternative plan. This too is no ordinary budget. As the opposition party, we believe this moment must be met by offering the American people a different way forward -- one based on our belief that America is an exceptional nation, and we want to keep it that way. Our budget applies our country's enduring first principles to the problems of our day. Rather than attempting to equalize the results of peoples' lives and micromanaging their affairs, we seek to preserve our system of protecting our natural rights and equalizing opportunity for all. The plan works to accomplish four main goals: 1) fulfill the mission of health and retirement security; 2) control our nation's debts; 3) put the economy on a path of growth and leadership in the global economy; and 4) preserve the American legacy of leaving the next generation better off.
Under the president's plan, spending will top $4 trillion this year alone, and consume 28.5% of our nation's economy. His plan would mean a $1 trillion increase to the already unsustainable spending growth of our nation's entitlement programs -- including a "down payment" toward government-controlled health care and education; a $1.5 trillion tax increase to further shackle the small businesses and investors we rely on to create jobs; a massive increase in energy costs for families via cap and trade. Moreover, the Obama plan would result in an exploding deficit, a doubling of the nation's debt in five years, and an increase of that debt to more than 82% of our nation's GDP by the last year of the budget. This approach will ultimately debase our currency and reduce the living standards of the American people.
Instead of doubling the debt in five years, and tripling it in 10, the Republican budget curbs the explosion in spending called for by the president and his party. Our plan halts the borrow-and-spend philosophy that brought about today's economic problems, and puts a stop to heaping ever-growing debt on future generations -- and it does so by controlling spending, not by raising taxes. The greatest difference lies in the size of government our budgets achieve over time (see nearby chart).
While our approach ensures a sturdy safety net for those facing chronic or temporary difficulties, it understands that the reliability of this protection and the other functions of government depend on a vibrant, free and growing private sector to generate the resources necessary for it.
Here's an outline of what we propose:
- Deficits/Debt. The Republican budget achieves lower deficits than the Democratic plan in every year, and by 2019 yields half the deficit proposed by the president. By doing so, we control government debt: Under our plan, debt held by the public is $3.6 trillion less during the budget period.
- Spending. Our budget gives priority to national defense and veterans' health care. We freeze all other discretionary spending for five years, allowing it to grow modestly after that. We also place all spending under a statutory spending cap backed up by tough budget enforcement.
- Energy. Our budget lays a firm foundation to position the U.S. to meet three important strategic energy goals: reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, deploying more clean and renewable energy sources free of greenhouse gas, and supporting economic growth. We do these things by rejecting the president's cap-and-trade scheme, by opening exploration on our nation's oil and gas fields, and by investing the proceeds in a new clean energy trust fund, infrastructure and further deficit reduction.
- Entitlements. Our budget also takes steps toward fulfilling the mission of health and retirement security, in part by making these programs fiscally sustainable. The budget moves toward making quality health care affordable and accessible to all Americans by strengthening the relationship between patients and their doctors, not the dictates of government bureaucrats. We preserve the existing Medicare program for all those 55 or older; and then, to make the program sustainable and dependable, those 54 and younger will enter a Medicare program reformed to work like the health plan members of Congress and federal employees now enjoy. Starting in 2021, seniors would receive a premium support payment equal to 100% of the Medicare benefit on average. This would be income related, so low-income seniors receive extra support, and high-income seniors receive support relative to their incomes -- along the same lines as the president's Medicare Part D proposal.
We strengthen the Medicaid safety net by converting the federal share of Medicaid payments into an allotment tailored for each state's low-income population. This will enhance state flexibility and sensitivity to spending growth.
In one of the most valued government programs -- Social Security -- our budget begins to develop a bipartisan solution to the program's pending bankruptcy by incorporating some of the reforms advocated by the president's budget director. Specifically, we provide for a trigger that would make small adjustments in the benefits for higher-income beneficiaries if the Social Security Administration determines the Social Security Trust Fund cannot meet its obligations. This is a modest but serious proposal which would not affect those in or near retirement, but is aimed at helping develop a consensus, across party lines, toward saving this important retirement program. We also assure that benefits for lower-income recipients are large enough to keep them out of poverty.
- Tax Reform. Our budget does not raise taxes, and makes permanent the 2001 and 2003 tax laws. In fact, we cut taxes and reform the tax system. Individuals can choose to pay their federal taxes under the existing code, or move to a highly simplified system that fits on a post card, with few deductions and two rates. Specifically, couples pay 10% on their first $100,000 in income (singles on $50,000) and 25% above that. Capital gains and dividends are taxed at 15%, and the death tax is repealed. The proposal includes generous standard and personal exemptions such that a family of four earning $39,000 would not pay tax on that amount. In an effort to revive peoples' lost savings, and to create an incentive for risk-taking and investment, the budget repeals the capital gains tax through 2010 for all taxpayers.
On the business side, the budget permanently cuts the uncompetitive corporate income tax rate -- currently the second highest in the industrialized world -- to 25%. This puts American companies in a better position to lead in the global economy, promotes jobs here at home, and strengthens worker paychecks.
We hope the administration and Democratic leaders in Congress do not distort and preach fear about our Republican plan. Some may be tempted to appeal to the darker emotions of envy and insecurity that surely run high in times like these. Yet we know Americans are stronger, smarter and prouder than this ploy assumes.
In the recent past, the Republican Party failed to offer the nation an inspiring vision and a concrete plan to tackle our problems with innovative and principled solutions. We do not intend to repeat that mistake. America is not the greatest nation on earth by chance. We earned this greatness by rewarding individual achievement, by advancing and protecting natural rights, and by embracing freedom. We intend to continue this uniquely American tradition.
Mr. Ryan, from Wisconsin, is the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123854083982575457.html

Where does it say that the powers of the government are limited to those set forth in the constitution.

For instance, where in the constitution does it say that congress can regulate the airways? Or, is it your position that it cannot?

Ican: You have never established that the Obama Administration is doing anything in violation of the Constitution. You make false accusations.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article I.
Section 8.
Section 8. The Congress shall have power
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
The Bill of Rights (1791)

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html
Amendments XI-XXVII To the US Constitution

Debra Law wrote:

Ican: You have never established that the Obama Administration is doing anything in violation of the Constitution. You make false accusations.

Yes , I did establish that the Obama Administration is doing something in violation of the Constitution: They are taking wealth away from people and organizations that earned it and giving it away to people and organizations that did not earn it.

Always the Victim

by John Cole

Glenn has a great post up documenting the nonsensical whinging of the modern right about being victimized by, well, everyone and everything, that is well worth a read. A snippet:

Quote:

The predominant attribute of the right-wing movement is self-victimizing petulance over the unfair treatment to which they are endlessly and mercilessly subjected. Last week, C-SPAN broadcast a Commentary Magazine event that almost certainly set a record for most tough-guy/warrior nepotism ever stuffed onto a single panel, as it featured William Kristol (son of Irv and Gertrude), John Podhoretz (son of Norm and Midge), and Jonah Goldberg (son of Lucianne). Jihadis around the world are undoubtedly still trembling at the sight of this brigade of Churchillian toughness.

Exemplifying the deeply self-pitying theme of the entire discussion, Jonah continuously insisted that conservative magazines are so very, very important to the political landscape"indispensably so"because conservative voices are frozen out of mainstream media venues by The Liberal Media, so that poor, lonely, stigmatized conservatives can only get right-wing opinion in places like Weekly Standard and National Review. In between Jonah’s petulant laments about how conservative opinion cannot be heard in The Mainstream Media, Bill Kristol talked about his New York Times column and his Washington Post column, John Podhoretz told stories about his tenure editing The New York Post Editorial Page and Charles Krauthammer’s years of writing a column for Time and The New Republic, and Jonah referenced his Los Angeles Times column. None of them ever recognized the gaping disparity between those facts and their woe-is-us whining about conservative voices like theirs being shut out of The Liberal Media. So important in conservative mythology is self-victimization that they maintain it even as they themselves unwittingly provide the facts which disprove it.

It is worth noting this is nothing new, and it is surprising how often they go to the well with the victim schitck. In response to a close election in NY-20 last night, Newsmax blares the following headline:

Quote:

“NY GOP Moves To Block Franken-Style Vote Grab”

Got it? The incumbent Republican Senator of Minnesota, Norm Coleman, wasn’t just unpopular to such an extent that he could not win a three-way race. That would not be an acceptable frame for the permanent victims. Instead, we are alerted that the election was “stolen” in a “vote grab.” Also notice this sets the stage for Republicans doing whatever they want in NY, because they have to, otherwise they will be victims of the Murphy/Democratic cabal. Tedisco, with his dozens of years in the Assembly and huge network of supporters and insider knowledge of the system just doesn’t stand a chance against the Murphy machine. It would be funny if they weren’t serious.

Yesterday, the following piece circulated the right-wing blogosphere:

Quote:

A lawyer involved with legal action against Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) told a House Judiciary subcommittee on March 19 The New York Times had killed a story in October that would have shown a close link between ACORN, Project Vote and the Obama campaign because it would have been a “a game changer.”

Heather Heidelbaugh, who represented the Pennsylvania Republican State Committee in the lawsuit against the group, recounted for the ommittee what she had been told by a former ACORN worker who had worked in the group’s Washington, D.C. office. The former worker, Anita Moncrief, told Ms. Heidelbaugh last October, during the state committee’s litigation against ACORN, she had been a “confidential informant for several months to The New York Times reporter, Stephanie Strom.”

This is the mother lode, isn’t it? It is the whine equivalent of the superfecta. The liberal NY Times, ACORN, the Democrats, and Obama all conspired to steal the election from John McCain. John McCain wasn’t doomed by the fallout of decades of Republican rule. He wasn’t doomed by his poor performance in the debates, his choice of an idiot for a running mate, or his ridiculous response to the financial meltdown. No. Instead, we learn that the Republicans lost because a “game-changer” was suppressed by a liberal cabal of evildoers designed to keep the man down.

You are probably laughing, but what you don’t understand is that these guys actually believe this.

A Cloture motion is necessary to end a Filibuster. It only comes into play when Unanimous Consent cannot be reached to move to a vote. When the Dems took over in 2007, the Republicans prevented a vote more than twice as often as the Dems did the year before. In 08, half again as many as 07.

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/our-broken-senate
A Cloture motion is necessary to end a Filibuster. It only comes into play when Unanimous Consent cannot be reached to move to a vote. When the Dems took over in 2007, the Republicans prevented a vote more than twice as often as the Dems did the year before. In 08, half again as many as 07.
...
Moving from requiring unanimous consent to do almost anything in the Senate to a slightly higher threshold (say, requiring five objections to stop something instead of just one) would dilute the power of one crank to bring the whole institution to a halt. Making all holds public, something pushed for several years by Senators Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR), would make a small difference. But the problems here are less the rules and more the culture. And that is not going to change anytime soon.

You didn't establish anything. What you define as "taking wealth away from people" is called taxation. Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes. Your bunk (nonsense) that Congress has violated the uniformity provision has been repeatedly debunked. Yet, you persist in making false accusations. How is the Obama Administration violating the constitution when Congress exercises its constitutional power to lay and collect taxes?

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp
Madison No. 45
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

"The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed41.asp
Madison No. 41
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms to raise money for the general welfare.

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed36.asp
Hamilton No. 36
Let it be recollected that the proportion of these taxes is not to be left to the discretion of the national legislature, but is to be determined by the numbers of each State, as described in the second section of the first article. An actual census or enumeration of the people must furnish the rule, a circumstance which effectually shuts the door to partiality or oppression. The abuse of this power of taxation seems to have been provided against with guarded circumspection. In addition to the precaution just mentioned, there is a provision that all duties, imposts, and excises shall be UNIFORM throughout the United States.