8/3/11 Daily Grind: Are We Double-Dipping?

Are We Double-Dipping?

By Robert Romano

As the poor economic data continues to come in, the bad just gets worse.

 Poor manufacturing numbers, growth revised downward to nearly zero for the first quarter, and now lower-than-expected consumer spending all weigh on the weakest economic recovery in modern history.

Housing hit new lows in March.  High gasoline and food prices are squeezing household budgets.  The U.S. is being threatened with a credit downgrade.  And unemployment has remained unacceptably high for the longest period since the Great Depression.

Now speculation has begun anew that QE3 from the Federal Reserve is right around the corner.  Apparently, expanding its balance sheet from $896 billion in Aug. 2007 when the housing slump began, to $2.9 trillion today — a 223 percent increase — has had little effect at stopping the bleeding.

Whether the Fed steps in again or not, renewed calls for it to fire up its printing press again are a very poor economic indicator.

Get full story here.

---

The Hot Air Effect

By Rick Manning

Global warming alarmists have spent the past two decades convincing the world that carbon dioxide, particularly man produced carbon dioxide, is plunging the world into a cataclysmic heat wave that will melt the polar ice caps, flood coastal areas and generally change life on planet earth as we know it.

Every year, "scientists" whose financial grants seem to be dependent upon a contest of who can come up with the most outlandish claims emerge with more dire predictions.

You have the scientists who purportedly observed four polar bears floating dead, and two years later developed a theory that global warming was a threat to the polar bear population.  His work led to polar bears being placed on the threatened list due to their survival being threatened by global warming. 

Of course, the latest survey of the polar bear population shows that it is risen as much as 500% since the 1970's from an estimate of 5,000 total bears to 25,000 in 2010.  A truth that was too inconvenient to be included in Al Gore's Academy Award winning documentary which mentions the polar bear issue.

Climate scientists have warned that the polar ice caps were disappearing (which is the basis for the polar bear worry.) 

Get full story here.

---

Jim Crow Lives On

By David Nace

Most people outside of the construction industry are surprised to learn that the wages and benefits paid to workers on government construction projects are set by the government and construction unions, not by the marketplace.  As taxpayers, they are generally outraged when they learn that these wages may be double the market wages in many areas of America.  They may be even more shocked to learn that this law was enacted to prevent blacks from working on taxpayer-funded construction projects.

This legislation had its origins in Jim Crow America, a time when the Democrat-controlled federal government openly discriminated against blacks by enacting laws that restricted opportunities available to them.  An Alabama contractor used black workers to build a Veteran's Bureau hospital in Representative Robert Bacon's district on Long Island in the mid 1920's. Starting in 1927, Representative Bacon introduced 13 separate bills to prevent black workers from working on federal construction projects.  Finally in 1931, he and Senator James Davis from Pennsylvania were able to pass a bill that required the payment of "prevailing" wages on federal construction projects.  Since the American Federation of Labor was instrumental in the passage of this bill, the term "prevailing" wages really meant union wages.  The initial threshold for paying "prevailing" wages was $5000, but that was lowered to $2000 in 1935.

The Department of Labor was given the task of determining what the prevailing wages were in each county in America.  In areas where over 30 percent of the construction workforce was union, the law mandated that "prevailing" wages were automatically union wages.  Even in other areas of the country, this became the Department of Labor standard.

Get full story here.

3/8/11 Daily Grind: Wisconsin Faces Layoffs After Democrats Flee

Wisconsin Faces Layoffs After Democrats Flee

By Adam Bitely

The public employee union fueled absence of Wisconsin State Senate Democrats has caused a complete stall on important budgetary matters facing the legislature.  As a result, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has been forced to begin immediately laying off state employees. Governor Walker announced last Friday that the layoff notices would be immediately delivered to 1,500 state employees saving the state $30 million.

These layoffs did not have to happen. The layoffs were forced upon Governor Walker. He was left with few options after Senate Democrats chose to go "missing" for weeks on end.

This abdication of responsibility by the Senate Democrats exposes the true motives behind the powerful public-sector unions in the Wisconsin budget battle. Big Labor and their Senate Democrat pawns have shown that this is about political power and the bank accounts of the unions and not about the state employees they represent. The unions, after all, are claiming to promote state employees best interests.

Get full story here.

---

'The Week Ahead' Analyzes How Much Power Unions Really Have Left

Video by Frank McCaffrey

Get permalink here.

---

San Jose Union Fights for 'Right' to be Hired

By Robert Romano

Is there a right to be hired? That's what the 214-member Confidential Employees Organization, a public sector union representing employees of the San Jose City Council, seem to think.  Controversy erupted when City Councilman Pete Constant wanted to save the city, which currently faces a $100 million budget deficit, $70,000 annually by not hiring an assistant.

But, instead of being praised for his fiscal discipline, the city's only-serving Republican was met with a lawsuit by the union.  The union says he is required under the city's collective bargaining agreement to hire the assistant, whether he wants one or not. Constant has said he prefers to the handle the secretarial duties himself with the help of his aides, and that his constituents support him making the decision of who to hire, if anyone. 

Judge Kevin McKenney of the Santa Clara County Superior Court has ordered that the case be decided by California's Public Employment Relations Board.

Get full story here.



NYT Attributes GOP Election Victory to Shady Anonymous Donors, Dismisses Tea Party Factor

By Kevin Mooney

Republican operatives should be credited and recognized for their aggressive fundraising efforts, shrewd communication tactics and for cultivating an alliance with "outside interests" and corporate benefactors. But the party's renewed commitment to constitutional limited government had very little bearing on the 2010 election returns, according to the New York Times.

This is the central message of a recent New York Times post-election report that somersaults away from acknowledging the powerful influence Tea Party activists had on independent voters. While it is evident from the election returns and opinions polls that the public favors tighter restraints on federal power, the newspaper takes care to sidestep any discussion of the ideological. Instead, the report peddles alternative explanations for the 2010 results that fixate on corporate interests that supposedly have impure motives and shady political entities tied with Karl Rove, the former political advisor President George W. Bush.

There's a disconnect here because the article concedes that Democrats by and large also raised more money than their Republican counterparts thanks to organized labor and other left leaning pressure groups.

"The White House struggled to keep Democrats in line, with a misplaced confidence in the power of the coalition that propelled Mr. Obama into office," the report says. "Republicans capitalized on backlash to the ambitious agenda Mr. Obama and his party pursued, which fueled unrestricted and often anonymous contributions to conservative groups, some advised by a nemesis Democrats thought they had shaken, Karl Rove."

The report continued, "That money so strengthened the Republican assault across the country that an exasperated Democratic Party strategist likened it to `nuclear Whac-a-Mole.' Most of all, Republican leaders had the foresight to imagine the possibility of winning again. Even now, they believe they could have taken back the Senate if they had just managed to block at least two Tea Party candidates who proved unelectable."

This assessment has to be balanced against the grass roots efforts that ultimately propelled other Republican candidates with strong libertarian leanings to victory. Recall, that the Times (and other press organs) were highly dismissive of Rand Paul in Kentucky and Marco Rubio in Florida. Both candidates challenged the elite establishments of their own parties and connected with an antagonized electorate opposed to the Democratic Party's spending schemes. Both candidates persevered through negative press coverage with considerable tea party support.

It should also be noted that the liberal media's antipathy toward the Citizens United Supreme Court decision expanding First Amendment freedoms is lurking behind the report. On the question of anonymous donations and the relationship between corporations and the Republican Party, some key facts are in order.

While President Obama has accused the Chamber of Commerce of accepting foreign donations to influence the elections, which would be a violation of the law, his statement is provably false.

"You don't know," Obama told a Philadelphia rally for Joe Sestak, the defeated Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate. "It could even be foreign-owned corporations. You don't know because they don't have to disclose."

Only, they do have to disclose. Obama's statement is actually provably false. You see, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce actually operates a political action committee, which is required to file reports with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC).

You can read the U.S. Chamber PAC's filings for yourself at http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_10+C00082040.

Additionally, the PAC's "secret" donor lists are at http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/com_ind/2009_C00082040 and http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/com_rcvd/2009_C00082040. These are all FEC filings. PAC's are already required to disclose donors under federal law.

In fact, this is a part of the Chamber that is expressly engaged in electioneering, subject to full disclosure.

While it is true that the Chamber's 501(c)6 filings are not public, that does not mean such disclosures do not exist. Many of them actually should already be available to the Obama Administration. How?

"Any organization, whether or not it engages in electioneering must file tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which include who donates," Americans for Limited Government President  Bill Wilson recently explained

Organizations must file form 990's, which include Schedule B's for disclosing donations over specified amounts depending on the type of organization. Minimum net donations which must be included in the forms can range from $1,000 to $5,000, depending on the group.

If the Obama Administration has reason to believe that the Chamber — or any other organization — is using foreign donations to engage in electioneering, it could have the IRS simply conduct an audit, which would quickly get to the truth of the matter.

The obsession with anonymous donors who are not so anonymous is served up to distract from the ideological factors that collapsed the Democratic majority in the House and eroded its position in the Senate. That's the story.

Kevin Mooney is a contributing editor to Americans for Limited Government (ALG) News Bureau and the Executive Editor of TimesCheck.com.

http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=2863

The Countdown Has Begun

By Rebekah Rast

Those who are counting down to Christmas know there are only 24 days left.

This is significant to the politicians on Capitol Hill as well because it means only a few more weeks until the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire.

Congress is aware of this as well as Obama.  In a meeting Tuesday they discussed this very issue and the importance of working towards a compromise so America is not plagued with higher taxes as they ring in the New Year.

The American people have heard a lot about the plans for the income tax rates.  Obama would like the tax cuts made permanent for some, but increase taxes on those individuals making more than $200,000 or couples making more than $250,000 a year.  Republicans in Congress would like to keep the tax rates the same, not raising taxes on anyone in the midst of this prolonged economic downturn.

With the income tax rates consuming Congress' tax agenda, it makes you wonder what's to come of the other tax rates set to expire come Jan. 1, 2011, including the expiring rates of the capital gains and dividend taxes.

These taxes should be equally important to any American who owns stock and investments and those who just like to save their money.

Come Jan. 1, the tax rate of capital gains will rise from 15 percent to 20 percent.  The top dividends tax will rise from 15 percent to 39.6 percent.  If Congress allows this to happen, it will be a heavy blow to those who save and invest.

"If the capital gains and dividend taxes increase, then America will suffer," says Bill Wilson, president of Americans for Limited Government (ALG).  "We need to encourage small businesses to grow and Americans to invest in American-owned companies.  I sincerely hope that Congress and Obama understand the damage that would be done if these taxes were to increase."

A Bloomberg article states Obama's agenda for the capital gains and dividend tax rates as this: "Obama proposes preserving the 15 percent rates on both for individuals earning less than $200,000 and joint filers earning less than $250,000. He supports allowing the capital gains rate to revert to 20 percent for high earners.  He also would cap the dividend tax rate at 20 percent rather than allowing dividends to be taxed as ordinary income."

With this in mind, and considering Republicans would like to prevent taxes from going up on all Americans, the meeting between Congressional leaders and Obama didn't come to any fast conclusions.

As stated by Politico about the meeting, "On taxes, Obama says 'there was broad agreement that we need to work together.  There are still differences about how to get there… We agreed that there must be some sensible common ground.'  He says he appointed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and his new budget director, Jack Lew, to 'work with representatives of both parties to break through this logjam.'

"He says the Republicans will do the same, 'beginning right away,' and that they'll get some answers 'over the next couple of days.' "

The American people hope "the next couple of days" sincerely means in the next two days.  Time is running out as well as excuses for having not dealt with this big-ticket item sooner than a lame-duck session.

Congress only has 24 more links to rip off its Christmas chain.  Let the countdown begin.

Rebekah Rast is a contributing editor to the Americans for Limited Government (ALG) News Bureau.

http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=2858

Second Chance or Last Chance?

By David Bozeman

Senator-elect Marco Rubio, in one of the most rousing speeches on election night (is anyone really inspired by calls for bi-partisanship and compromise?) declared that the Republican Party was given a second chance to do what it had promised before.  Last chance may be closer to the truth.

Indeed, the sweep of 2010 is wider than has been reported.  North Carolina, for instance, is an anomaly, a conservative state that favors Democrats, but its legislature, for the first time since the late 1800s, is now under Republican rule.  Yet Rubio is correct, 2010 was not a validation of a still highly-disfavored Republican Party but an opportunity to build a greater conservative movement for the next generation.

Right-wing pundits and intellectuals will generally speak the truth as they see it, but will Republican leaders in Washington succumb to the culturally ingrained notions of civility and bi-partisanship that typically undercut conservative values?  That is a danger, because liberalism advances in increments, even small ones, while conservatism deals more in absolutes.

The notion that we are a centrist nation, that presidents of both parties must abandon their bases and appeal to moderates belies the fact that it is usually Democrats who win big by moving to the center.  Bill Clinton, despite impeachment, left office on a high note after reading the writing on the wall in the '94 midterms. 

How many Democrats this year won without mentioning stimulus packages or health care reform? Congressman Mike McIntyre won re-election to North Carolina's seventh congressional district by distancing himself from Speaker Pelosi, calling himself his own man. Republicans, by contrast, generally win by sticking to their conservative guns.  Who are the brightest stars in the conservative galaxy, Jim DeMint or the unpredictable Lindsay Graham, Marco Rubio or that lamentable has-been Charlie Crist?

To the Class of 2010, stay your course.  Do not mold your convictions to the leftist/mainstream media standards of civility and expectations of "bipartisanship".  You will routinely be called extremists and bigots on the editorial and even the news pages.  But stand your ground.  It is not enough to answer your critics, turn the loaded questions back on them.  Make them show the compassion and justice in economic policies that transfer trillions of dollars out of main street and inner city America to the wealthy suburbs of Washington, DC. 

2010 has offered a golden opportunity to not just act on popular will but to mold it, to connect with and educate the voters.  And to the policy wonks and foot soldiers, take it to the blue states, to the minority communities and to college campuses.  Set the agenda, never ceding education, social security reform and other "failed" issues to the liberals.  And again to the incoming class, you will not win every election or legislative battle, but if you stick with the people, they will stick with you. 

Now is not the time to coast on merely reflecting public opinion, get out there and shape it!  And never forget, you were not elected to get along with freedom's enemies (of either party), you were elected to defeat them.  Your adherence to your campaign promises could well determine the future of the conservative movement and solidify freedom's last bastion for the rest of the 21st Century.

David Bozeman, former Libertarian Party Chairman, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=2803