CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Senate passes Obama's fiscal cliff tax increases in dead of night

In a move all too reminiscent of the passage of the ever unpopular ObamaCare, last night the Senate voted 89 to 8 to approve the so-called "American Taxpayer Relief Act" (H.R. 8, as amended). The deal was negotiated by Vice President Joseph Biden and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

You can read the 157 page bill below.

Mat 12564

It is very unlikely that any Senator actually read the 157 page bill before they voted on it. It's like former Speaker Pelosi said of the Democrats' ObamaCare bill, "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill increases tax revenue by $620 billion while reducing spending by only $15 billion. That's right a 41:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts. When Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush increased taxes in return for spending the ratios were 3:1 and 2:1 respectively.  We should remember that while those tax increases happened, the promised spending cuts did not.

That history makes me question the wisdom of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's effort to "prevent very real financial pain" by agreeing to tax increases in exchange for another spending cuts to be named later:

“As I said, this shouldn’t be the model for how to do things around here. But I think we can say we’ve done some good for the country. We’ve taken care of the revenue side of this debate. Now it’s time to get serious about reducing Washington’s out-of-control spending. That’s a debate the American people want. It’s the debate we’ll have next. And it’s a debate Republicans are ready for.”

The bill raises income tax rates for those taxpayers with incomes more than $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. These higher income taxpayers will also pay higher rates on investment income, with rates on dividends and capital gains rising from 15 percent to 20 percent. Add the 3.8 percent ObamaCare surcharge on investment income -- another tax that takes effect in January, and the top rate on investment income would rise to 23.8 percent for those high-income households.

The bill also raises taxes on couples earning more than $250,000 a year and single people earning more than $200,000 by limiting personal exemptions and itemized deductions.

Estates taxes will also be increased, with the top rate raised to 40 percent, with the first $5 million in value exempted for individual estates and $10 million for family estates.

The bill also delays the automatic $1.2 trillion draconian sequester spending cuts for sixty days. The sequester cuts, evenly split between defense and certain domestic discretionary spending, were scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2013. The $24 billion cost of the sequester delay is allegedly made up with a mix of spending cuts and new revenues from rules changes on converting traditional individual retirement accounts into Roth IRAs.

Worse, the bill actually increases the deficit by including:

• A permanent fix for the alternative minimum tax.
• A five-year extension of tax credits for college tuition and the working poor, which were enacted as part of Obama’s failed 2009 stimulus.
• A one-year extension for unemployment benefits, affecting two million people.
• The long-term unemployed could count on receiving emergency benefits for another year, at a cost of about $30 billion.

The eight Senators who voted against this tax increase included five Republicans and three Democrats:

• Bennett D-CO
• Carper D-DE
• Grassley R-IA
• Harkin D-IA
• Lee R-UT
• Paul R-KY
• Rubio R-FL
• Shelby R-AL.

That leaves a lot of Senators who violated their pledge not to raise taxes.

Now the question is, will the House also approve the American Taxpayer Relief Act?

 

Mark Penn on Obama's need for an Oklahoma City event flashback

As President prepares to take up the mantel of consoler in chief and address the nation in the wake of the tragic shooting in Arizona, we should remember that on November 4, 2010 political operative Mark Penn, longtime Democratic pollster, told Chris Matthews that what Obama really needs to reconnect to the American electorate is an Oklahoma City moment.

Watch the video:

Tonight Obama has his opportunity for his Oklahoma City moment. Perhaps Obama can use his moment to apologize for his extreme rhetoric as he plays the role of "consoler in chief."

Palin responds to the left-wing's 'reprehensible' 'blood libel'

Sarah Palin responds to the left-wing's despicable effort to blame her and the right for the evil act of a deranged shooter in Arizona.

In a video statement titled "America's Enduring Strength," Palin hits back, in a very civil manner, against the "irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event":

Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

Palin goes on to point out the error of those who tried to blame this senseless act of a madman on political rhetoric:

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols?

Let Palin speak for herself. Watch the video or read her statement below:

Sarah Palin: "America's Enduring Strength" from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.

Palin's statement strikes the perfect tone to counter the left's reprehensible use of blood libel in the left-wing hate machine's failed efforts to blame the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords on Palin and the right. 

Full text of Sarah Palin’s statement:

Like millions of Americans I learned of the tragic events in Arizona on Saturday, and my heart broke for the innocent victims. No words can fill the hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims’ families as we express our sympathy.

I agree with the sentiments shared yesterday at the beautiful Catholic mass held in honor of the victims. The mass will hopefully help begin a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country.

Our exceptional nation, so vibrant with ideas and the passionate exchange and debate of ideas, is a light to the rest of the world. Congresswoman Giffords and her constituents were exercising their right to exchange ideas that day, to celebrate our Republic’s core values and peacefully assemble to petition our government. It’s inexcusable and incomprehensible why a single evil man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day.

There is a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman.

Like many, I’ve spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.

President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.

Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.

As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, “We know violence isn’t the answer. When we ‘take up our arms’, we’re talking about our vote.” Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box – as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That’s who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional.

No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.

Just days before she was shot, Congresswoman Giffords read the First Amendment on the floor of the House. It was a beautiful moment and more than simply “symbolic,” as some claim, to have the Constitution read by our Congress. I am confident she knew that reading our sacred charter of liberty was more than just “symbolic.” But less than a week after Congresswoman Giffords reaffirmed our protected freedoms, another member of Congress announced that he would propose a law that would criminalize speech he found offensive.

It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today. Let us honor those precious lives cut short in Tucson by praying for them and their families and by cherishing their memories.

Let us pray for the full recovery of the wounded. And let us pray for our country. In times like this we need God’s guidance and the peace He provides. We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate.

America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week. We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy. We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner, and to unite in the knowledge that, though our ideas may be different, we must all strive for a better future for our country. May God bless America.

 

The extreme rhetoric should stop here

In the wake of the tragic shooting in Arizona there has been a lot of talk about the "tense political climate" and "extreme rhetoric." Sadly, all that talk and the left's determination to blame the right for the evil act committed by an apparently deranged young man has required that we do more than offer prayers condolences to victims and their families. Instead, we have been placed in a position from which we must push back against the left wing talking points that the shooting is the result of the right's rhetoric.

I am sick and tired of being sick and tired of the left wing media trying to blame the "tense political climate," the "extreme rhetoric" and even this despicable shooting on the right. Nevertheless, there has been some "extreme rhetoric" that a reasonable person might conclude encourages violence. Consider the following examples of extreme rhetoric rounded up by theblogprof:

• "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." Barack Obama in July 2008

• "I want you to argue with them and get in their face!" Barack Obama, September 2008

• "Here's the problem: It's almost like they've got -- they've got a bomb strapped to them and they've got their hand on the trigger. You don't want them to blow up. But you've got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger."  Barack Obama on banks, March 2009

• "I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!" Barack Obama on ACORN Mobs, March 2010

• "We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick." Barack Obama on the private sector, June 2010

• "A Republican majority in Congress would mean 'hand-to-hand combat' on Capitol Hill for the next two years, threatening policies Democrats have enacted to stabilize the economy." Barack Obama, October 6, 2010

• "We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us." Barack Obama to Latinos, October 2010

Please, can someone persuade Barack Obama to tone down his extreme rhetoric before it results in more violence?

Senator Kennedy Has Malignant Brain Tumor

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080520/ap_on_re_us/kennedy
Senator Edward Kennedy has a cancerous brain tumor. The tumor caused the seizure Kennedy suffered over the weekend:

Doctors for the Massachusetts Democrat say tests conducted after Kennedy suffered a seizure this weekend show a tumor in his left parietal lobe. Preliminary results from a biopsy of the brain identified the cause of the seizure as a malignant glioma.

His treatment will be decided after more tests but the usual course includes combinations of radiation and chemotherapy.

[. . .]

Malignant gliomas are a type of brain cancer diagnosed in about 9,000 Americans a year — and the most common type among adults. It's a starting diagnosis: How well patients fare depends on what specific tumor type is determined by further testing.

Average survival can range from less than a year for very advanced and aggressive types — such as glioblastomas — or to about five years for different types that are slower growing.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the senator and his family.

UPDATE: Doris Kearns Goodwin provides some perspective on Senator Kennedy in the following video:

Newspaper Circulation Continues Decline

U.S. newspaper circulation fell 3.6 percent in the last six months.

Among top 20 U.S. newspapers, only the two largest national dailies, USA Today and The Wall Street Journal, were able to increase circulation.

Newspaper circulation has been on a declining trend since the 1980s. According to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, the pace of decline has picked up in recent years as more people go online for news, information and entertainment:

Gannett Co.'s USA Today remained the top-selling paper in the country with an average daily circulation of, 2,284,219, up 0.3 percent, while The Wall Street Journal rose 0.4 percent to 2,069,463.

[. . .]

The New York Times Co.'s flagship paper remained the third-largest with circulation of 1,077,256, down 3.9 percent from the same period a year earlier. That company also owns The Boston Globe and International Herald Tribune.

Metropolitan dailies have suffered the worst declines, a trend that continued in the most recent reporting period, with the Dallas Morning News reporting a 10.6 percent drop to 368,313.

Courtesy of the Associated Press, here are the percentage changes in average paid weekday circulation of the nation's 20 largest newspapers:

1. USA Today, 2,284,219, up 0.3 percent

2. The Wall Street Journal, 2,069,463, up 0.4 percent

3. The New York Times, 1,077,256, down 3.9 percent

4. Los Angeles Times, 773,884, down 5.1 percent

5. New York Daily News, 703,137, down 2.1 percent

6. New York Post, 702,488, down 3.1 percent

7. The Washington Post, 673,180, down 3.6 percent

8. Chicago Tribune, 541,663, down 4.4 percent

9. Houston Chronicle, 494,131, down 1.8 percent

10. The Arizona Republic, 413,332, down 4.7 percent

11. Newsday, Long Island, 379,613, down 4.7 percent

12. San Francisco Chronicle, 370,345, down 4.2 percent

13. Dallas Morning News, 368,313, down 10.6 percent

14. The Boston Globe, 350,605, down 8.3 percent

15. The Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J., 345,130, down 7.4 percent

16. The Philadelphia Inquirer, 334,150, down 5.1 percent

17. The Plain Dealer, Cleveland, 330,280, down 4.2 percent

18. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 326,907, down 8.5 percent

19. Star Tribune of Minneapolis-St. Paul, 321,984, down 6.7 percent

20. St. Petersburg Times, Florida, 316,007, down 2.1 percent

How much longer can printed newspapers survive?

More Connections

Frontpage has an interview with Thomas Joscelyn, an expert on the international terrorist network. The interview focuses on the light recently realeased documents shed on the connection between Saddam's Iraq and its support for terrorist entities such as al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah.

Millions of documents captured in Iraq and Afghanistan by American forces are only now being released. Joscelyn says the documents are important they provide a window into the Iraqi regime’s activities prior to the war and can potentially shed light on Saddam’s Human Rights atrocities, connections to terrorism and what happened to Iraq’s WMD programs:

One IIS document, in particular, has received significant attention. The document was apparently authored in early 1997 and summarizes a number of contacts between Iraqi Intelligence and Saudi oppositionist groups, including al Qaeda, during the mid 1990’s. The document says that in early 1995 bin Laden requested Iraqi assistance in two ways. First, bin Laden wanted Iraqi television to carry al Qaeda’s anti-Saudi propaganda. Saddam agreed. Second, bin Laden requested Iraqi assistance in performing “joint operations against the foreign forces in the land of Hijaz.” That is, bin Laden wanted Iraq’s assistance in attacking U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia.

We do not know what, exactly, came of bin Laden’s second request. But the document indicates that Saddam’s operatives “were left to develop the relationship and the cooperation between the two sides to see what other doors of cooperation and agreement open up.” Thus, it appears that both sides saw value in working with each other. It is also worth noting that in the months following bin Laden’s request, al Qaeda was tied to a series of bombings in Saudi Arabia.

The same document also indicates that Iraq was in contact with Dr. Muhammad al-Massari, the head of the Committee for Defense of Legitimate Rights (CDLR). The CDLR is a known al Qaeda propaganda organ based in London. The document indicates that the IIS was seeking to “establish a nucleus of Saudi opposition in Iraq” and to “use our relationship with [al-Massari] to serve our intelligence goals.” The document also notes that Iraq was attempting to arrange a visit for the al Qaeda ideologue to Baghdad. Again, we can’t be certain what came of these contacts.

Just recently, however, al-Massari confirmed that Saddam had joined forces with al Qaeda prior to the war. Al-Massari says that Saddam established contact with the “Arab Afghans” who fled Afghanistan to northern Iraq in 2001 and that he funded their relocation to Iraq under the condition that they would not seek to undermine his regime. Upon their arrival, these al Qaeda terrorists were put in contact with Iraqi army personnel, who armed and funded them.

Joscelyn tells us that the 9-11 Commission's proclamation that there was no operational relationship between Saddam’s Iraq and al Qaeda is now more tenuous than ever:

Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator who served as a 9/11 commissioner, told Eli Lake of The New York Sun that the document is a “very significant set of facts.” While cautioning that it does not tie Saddam to the September 11 attack, Kerrey said that the document “does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States.” That circle includes al Qaeda’s affiliate in the Philippines, Abu Sayyaf, which was funded by bin Laden’s brother-in-law. One document, which has not yet been released to the public, indicates that Iraqi Intelligence also funded Abu Sayyaf. Steve Hayes first reported the existence of this document last month. The document includes a series of IIS memos from 2001 in which Saddam’s henchmen discuss funding the group, but consider withdrawing support after a string of high-profile kidnappings of westerners brought unwanted attention. But whatever concerns Iraqi Intelligence had appear to be short-lived. In 2003, one Abu Sayyaf leader openly admitted to the press that the Iraqis had been funding his group.

One should always be cautious when analyzing documents such as these. But those who insist Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism or al Qaeda should read the interview. The often repeated assumption that Saddam’s secularism precluded significant cooperation between Saddam and al Qaeda is in fact only an assumption. The assumption is called into question by Joscelyn's analysis and facts.

Slobodan Milosevic, The ''Butcher Of The Balkans'' Dead

Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, the ''butcher of the Balkans,'' has died. He was found lifeless on his bed in his jail cell.

Milosevic was charged with 66 counts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in complex indictments covering bloody conflicts in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo as Yugoslavia imploded in the 1990s. Milosevic suffered a heart condition and high blood pressure which repeatedly interrupted his trial in The Hague that has dragged on for four years.

Good riddance.

Can It Be Five Years?

Five years ago, on Jan. 19, 2001, the day before President Clinton left office, he agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license and agreed to pay a $25,000 fine to the Arkansas Bar Association in exchange for an agreement that Whitewater prosecutors wouldn't pursue criminal charges against him after he lied under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

The former President is again eligible to get an Arkansas law license. Not that he needs it. According to the Associated Press, last year Senator Clinton's financial reports disclosed the Clintons had between $5 million and $25 million in a joint bank account.

The five year anniversary also means many of former President Bill Clinton's records become subject to the federal Freedom of Information Act, the law that allows citizens to see public records. Officials at the Clinton Library expect a deluge of requests for access to some of the 80 million pages of presidential papers and 20 million e-mails stored at the library.

Illegally Striking NYC Transit Workers Fined $1M A Day

As New York's subway and bus workers illegally went on strike, stranding millions of commuters, holiday shoppers and tourists at the height of the Christmas rush, State Justice Theodore Jones hit the union with a $1 million-a-day fine.

According to the Assocoiated Press, New Yorkers , as always, coped:

New Yorkers car-pooled, shared taxis, rode bicycles, roller-skated or walked in the freezing cold. Early morning temperatures were in the 20s.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who had said the strike would cost the city as much as $400 million a day, joined the throngs of people crossing the Brooklyn Bridge by foot.

"It's a form of terrorism, if you ask me," said Maria Negron, who walked across the bridge. "I hope they go back to work."

With special traffic rules in place, the city survived the morning rush without the monumental gridlock some had feared. Manhattan streets were unusually quiet; some commuters just stayed home.

[. . .]

The mayor put into effect a sweeping emergency plan, including the requirement that cars entering Manhattan below 96th Street have at least four occupants.

Last week Judge Jones issued injunctions prohibiting the transit workers from striking:

Injunction Prohibiting Illegal Strike Activity By The TWU [pdf].

Injunction Prohibiting Illegal Strike Activity By The ATU [pdf].

The strikers have little if any public support. I've seen and heard nothing but negative comments about the strike.