Obama '08?

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19281&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
THE DIVIDEND TAX BILL ARRIVES

As the big tax increase day of January 1, 2011 approaches, the Democrats running Congress are beginning to lay out their priorities. Get ready for bigger rate increases than previously advertised, says the Wall Street Journal.

Consider:
• Last week the Senate Budget Committee passed a fiscal 2011 budget resolution that includes an increase in the top tax rate on dividends to 39.6 percent from the current 15 percent -- a 164 percent increase.
• This blows past the 20 percent rate that President Obama proposed in his 2011 budget and which his economic advisers promised in 2008.

And that's only for starters, says the Journal:
• The recent health care bill includes a 3.8 percent surcharge on all investment income, including dividends, beginning in 2013.
• This would nearly triple the top dividend rate to 43.4 percent in Obama's four years as President.
The driving impulse here is money, says the Journal:
• According to the static revenue estimation rules that Congress lives by, maintaining the current 15 percent tax rate on capital gains and dividends will "cost" the government $347.7 billion over 10 years.
• The Congressional Budget Office hasn't broken out how much the higher 39.6 percent dividend rate alone would yield in revenue, but a reasonable guess is $200 billion.

Congress simply wants that cash, says the Journal.

Source: Editorial, "The Dividend Tax Bill Arrives," Wall Street Journal, April 29, 2010.

The Obama administration has only partially complied with congressional subpoenas for information on the deadly November shootings at Fort Hood, Texas.

The failure by the Defense and Justice departments to turn over all the requested documentation " which they say they do not intend to do " is not likely to ease the growing tension between some key senators and the Obama administration over the incident at the Army base on Nov. 5, 2009

H2O MAN wrote:

Agreed, but it's Obama that wants to decide for all of us.

That's your opinion of what he wants. But I think you're wrong.

The Defense and Justice departments “have produced a limited set of documents in response to the subpoenas, which we appreciate,” Lieberman and Collins said in a statement. “However, they still refuse to provide access to their agents who reportedly reviewed Maj. Hasan’s communications with radical extremist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and to transcripts of prosecution interviews with Hasan’s associates and superiors, which DOD [the Department of Defense] already provided to its internal review.”

The Pentagon has been concerned that releasing the information requested by Lieberman’s committee would jeopardize the integrity of the military justice process and the criminal prosecution of Hasan. Gates, who recently denied that the Pentagon was hiding any documents from the committee, has directed his department to be as responsive as possible without jeopardizing Hasan’s prosecution.

But the same people that are now saying its ok are the same ones that slammed Bush for doing the exact same thing.

I just find it interesting that its ok for the dems to do it but not the repubs.
IMHO its not ok for either party to do it.

Obama Justice Department Tells Court to Shield White House Visitor Logs from Full Disclosure and FOIA Law

Now it’s official. The Obama White House has made the bogus claim in court that the Secret Service’s logs of White House visitors are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and therefore may be kept secret from the American people. In other words, the Obama administration believes you have no right to know under law who visits the White House or under what circumstances.

The Obama Justice Department stated its position in an April 21 court filing in a Judicial Watch lawsuit. As Judicial Watch noted in its original complaint filed on December 7, 2009, the administration’s claim “has been litigated and rejected repeatedly” by the courts.

As you may recall, Judicial Watch wants access to records detailing all visitors to the White House from January 20, 2009, to the present. And on February 22, 2010, we filed a “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment” in our lawsuit noting that the Obama administration is running afoul of the rule of law and court precedent:

At issue here is whether Secret Service visitor logs are agency records subject to the Freedom of Information Act ('FOIA'), 5 U.S.C. § 552. To date, every court that has reached this issue has concluded that the requested documents are agency records and must be processed in response to a properly submitted FOIA request. As no disputes of material fact exist as to the nature of the records, summary judgment as to this straightforward legal issue should be entered now.

Now Obama Justice Department lawyers don’t dispute the fact that the courts are not on their side in this issue. They simply say that “the district court cases on which [Judicial Watch] relies for a contrary conclusion were incorrectly decided.” They are standing by their erroneous argument that the visitor logs “are not agency (Secret Service) records subject to FOIA " despite the fact, as we note in our court documents, that these visitor logs were "created by" the U.S. Secret Service and that they remain “under agency control.”

And just in case the court doesn’t buy this line of reasoning, Justice Department lawyers also threw out the “national security card” to see if that will stick.

They speculated that there would be “dire national security consequences” if certain White House visitors were disclosed. To guard against these “consequences,” the Obama White House wants to be able to withhold visitor logs until as long as 12 years after President Obama leaves office. The Justice Department admits in its new court filing that the White House is taking records out of the Secret Service in order to ensure that they are not disclosed under FOIA.

In a bit of political grandstanding, the Justice Department also praised the Obama administration’s efforts to “voluntarily” release some White House visitor logs to the public, implying that this policy should be sufficient for Judicial Watch and the public at large. It is not. It is true that in 2009 in order to settle related litigation that the Obama White House began to release a select number of Secret Service visitor logs to the public. However, tens of thousands of other records continue to be withheld in defiance of FOIA law.

And, as you may recall, when Judicial Watch called public attention to the Obama administration’s penchant for secrecy regarding these visitor logs, we were invited to the White House to “discuss” the matter.

At the request of the White House, Judicial Watch staff visited with senior White House officials led by Norm Eisen, Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government. During the meeting, White House officials offered to make some accommodations to Judicial Watch regarding the visitor logs and encouraged Judicial Watch to publicly praise the Obama administration's commitment to transparency. However, the White House refused to abandon its legally indefensible contention that the visitor logs are not subject to FOIA law, prompting Judicial Watch's lawsuit. And here we are.

I find it shameful that the Obama administration would undermine a key transparency law in order to keep White House visitor logs secret. Only the Obama administration could offer to release pre-scrubbed White House visitor logs while withholding tens of thousands of other records and call it transparency. President Obama has violated his campaign promises of openness and transparency. We hope the court will do what it has done on previous occasions and uphold FOIA law.

http://www.atlassociety.org/cth-33-2299-Arizona_Illegal.aspx
Illegal Means Illegal in Arizona Now
by William R Thomas

April 28, 2010 -- Arizona has enacted a law that makes illegal immigration to the U.S. a state crime. As the top state for border-crossings from Mexico (and so, the main way station for illegal entry into the U.S.), Arizonans were tired of waiting for the Federal Immigration and Naturalization Service to stem the tide of illegal immigration into their state. They were also afraid that crime was rising due to the presence of law-breaking illegals.

Even before the law was signed, a great outcry arose. The Obama administration opposes it. Latino groups reject it. “Progressives” hate it. But let’s face it: illegal immigration is illegal, isn’t it?

What the law says

The new law does criminalize illegal immigration in Arizona (illegal immigrant status itself is a Federal offense, so the Arizona law piggybacks on the Federal immigration rules). The new law’s most basic violation is a misdemeanor, but repeat offense and many other conditions can raise it to a felony. It mandates that all illegal immigrants convicted of any crime in Arizona be delivered to the Federal Immigration and Naturalization service. So in effect, in enlists Arizona police and courts in actively enforcing Federal immigration laws.

It penalizes employers who hire illegal aliens. Since many illegal immigrants cross the border in Arizona no matter where they are headed, the law makes it a felony to transport illegal aliens for profit. It makes it illegal for any Arizona government official to fail to enforce immigration laws. Those who neglect the law may be sued by private citizens. Finally, it allows police to inquire about immigration status based on a "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal immigrant.

Why illegals Come

Here in Guatemala where I’m currently living the condemnation of the new law is universal. This is understandable, since Guatemalans have to pay $140 or more just to apply for a visa, and few can get one. Over the last ten years, Guatemalans have formed the third largest group of illegal aliens in the U.S., according to the Department of Homeland Security. Meanwhile, Guatemala isn’t even in the top twenty sources of legal, naturalized U.S. citizens. Thousands of Guatemalans every year make the long journey to Mexico’s northern border, attempting to cross into the U.S. by land. Some die, some turn back, and many suffer.

Yet who can blame them? In Guatemala, $10-$20 is a decent day’s wage, but prices for most products are not much lower than in the industrialized world. And Guatemala has a long history of troubled governance. Right now there’s a terrifying crime wave going on: murders fill the papers every day. Houses here are built like fortresses: just the picture of the open lawns and bare, unbarred windows of U.S. houses must seem like a dreamland of peace and plenty. People who cross the border without permission are violating no one’s rights. Ignoring the INS does violence to no one. They’re just ignoring a restriction on freedom. When their lives and well-being are at stake, they are morally justified in taking that chance.

Freedom of movement and the rule of law

I don’t think the idea of a free society is compatible with anything other than an open immigration policy. Foreigners have rights, too, and in normal circumstances no government should prevent peaceful individuals from dealing with each other by trade, no matter what their origin or nationality. Being born south of the border, or in India or China, or anywhere for that matter, should be no bar to honest folk seeking to live independently, even if they dare to buy or rent property in America or "gasp!"seek work in America. (However, the government need not provide foreigners with subsidies or welfare benefits, most of which it shouldn’t provide to anyone at all in the first place.) America has the honor to be the empire of liberty. America is not a nation, and it never should become one: we’re defined by allegiance to a constitution, not by language, race, religion, or tribe.

Yet the idea of a free society is even less compatible with the failure to enforce the law. The rule of law is the basis for all dependable liberty and for open government. Impartial and impersonal law makes possible a society of contract and independent action and it bans official caprice or vaguely-enforced statutes from affecting us. The American immigration laws are a disgrace. They give preference to American family members and historically important immigrant nationalities like the Irish and the Italians. They discriminate against Asians and against achievement-oriented individuals of every stripe. The inventive and hard-working should really be the first admitted, not the last, if we want America to thrive. Americans accept these oppressive, distortionary laws mainly because no one has really enforced them, up to now. The border patrol is a joke. At least a third of long-term immigrants to the U.S. each year come and stay illegally. Many who are now legal residents originally flouted the law to come, then won legal status in a past “immigration reform” that in effect encouraged illegal immigration as a route to citizenship.

So if the Arizona government will actually enforce the existing Federal laws, bully for them! Certainly, the Federal government should do more to enforce its own laws. Whatever the law is, please, let’s enforce it objectively and with due process. When the law is unjust or unwise (and so many are!), we must fight at the polls to correct them. But if we undermine the rule of law just to win the odd smidgeon of liberty, we are cutting our own throats.

The new law’s problematic aspects

Making it illegal to hire or transport illegal aliens certainly violates the rights of everyone concerned. So I can’t cheer that aspect of the Arizona law. It’s one thing to enforce the Federal statutes we have. But there’s no need to throw fat on the fire of a protectionist approach to immigration.

The aspect of the law that is drawing the most fire is the “reasonable suspicion” provision. The law gives police wide latitude in judging whether or not to ask a person to provide proof of legal residency. Critics claim that the law enables racial profiling, and that all immigrants will be subject to nuisance searches. I don’t understand what the griping is about: if you have a passport with a valid visa, or a green card, or a U.S. passport, just carry them. I carry my passport every day living in a foreign country as I now do.

In practice, the identity check in Arizona may just become more thorough. But perhaps the local police will use the law as a bullying tool: selectively hitting certain neighborhoods or workplaces. I hope that Arizona courts will refine the meaning of “reasonable” here to embrace standards of respect for individuals and even-handed application. However, it’s a fact that the majority of illegal aliens in the U.S. are Mexicans and Central Americans. And that’s who is likely to be crossing the border in the Arizona desert, too.

So it’s perfectly reasonable to check whether apparently foreign-born Latinos are in the country legally. Just as it is perfectly reasonable to check whether anyone with a non-native-speaker accent is in the country legally. Anyone who flies commercial in the U.S. experiences the absurdity of uniformly hassling obviously innocent people. The critics of this law sound as if they’d prefer for Arizona cops to set up check-points or conduct random checks: that would hassle everyone, and it would be pretty ineffective at finding illegals, too. Let’s do what we can to get the U.S. to adopt a more rational Federal policy. It’s high time that the Republicans and Democrats came together in a new immigration deal that opens the country up more for productive, independent immigrants; legalizes the illegals already here; and really enforces whatever (crummy, rights-violating) restrictions the law retains. But let’s get off the Arizonans’ backs. In essence, their new law just takes the Federal government at its word. That word, which is the law, is too important to denigrate or ignore.

Then you should have no problem with the people that fear and mistrust the Obama admin.