Friday, August 26, 2016

Friday, May 13, 2016

Thoughts on the 2016 Presidential Race... Pt I

Do those who are scared of a Trump presidency outnumber those who are scared of the violence of his opponents? I find an interesting juxtaposition, here. Trump supporters' violence, while minimal, has been widely reported, and blamed on Trump. Meanwhile, anti - Trump violence, which is much more widespread, is somehow also being blamed on Trump. I'm sorry, but the American people are sick of this double - standard in political coverage. You might've played Romney and McCain for patsy's, but Donald Trump is doubling down on your asses! If anything, the liberals reaction to him outweighs my dedication to conservative principles. That, and the fact is that the choice is either Trump or Clinton. As much as I respect my conservative friends who say that I will bear responsibility for whatever happens if Trump wins, I respond that your lack of support for the GOP nominee is as responsible for a Hillary victory. Plus, you fuckers already gave us Obama's second term. I can place the blame for his first election to W... who hurt the nation by following the GOP establishment...

What if Trump is our next President? Will the sky fall down? Will we have a trade war with China and destroy the world economy? What if Hillary is our next President? Will we continue having less power, both economically and militarily, in the world? These are just scattershot things that pundits posit, to scare voters. Personally, I worry more about Hillary becoming President, because she's more of the same. Pres. Obama promised change, and we found out his "change" sucked. Now, Hillary is doubling down on that? I'll take my chances with Trump, thank you...

Unfortunately, my right to vote has been obliterated. Sit it out, if you want, but I have to, thanks to NY State's repressive voting regulations. Who knew an over 50 White male Republican could be disenfranchised from voting, because I haven't voted in the last two Presidential elections, and moved within the state, and also missed "the deadline." That's where they get you, with "the deadline"... Any time a NY pol talks about "voter disenfranchisement," I either laugh or puke...

In conclusion, the American people have a very difficult decision before them, this November. The political junkie in me is fascinated enough to start posting here on LEAVWORLD: GRAFFITI POLITTI again, which says something...

Friday, January 10, 2014

Early opinions on Christie's "Bridgegate"

Three of today's opinions about Gov. Christie's "GWB" scandal, from the NY Post and the NY Daily News, that I read today.

Chris Christie Confesses

It was an uncharacteristically subdued but still assertive Chris Christie who began his press conference Thursday by apologizing to “the people of New Jersey, the people of Fort Lee . . . and the state Legislature” for the traffic chaos at the George Washington Bridge inflicted by his appointees.

So the question is not how Christie “handled” his presser or what it all means for a presidential run. The question is whether New Jersey’s governor told the truth to his citizens — and can show with his actions what taking responsibility really means.

Gov. Chris Christie’s load of bull

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s one-hour-and-forty-seven-minute self-serving, self-pitying display of contrition on Thursday was a climactic act in a brazen cover-up that threatens to further unravel his political career.
The independent investigation that remains to be done will reveal that he infected the Port Authority with political thuggery, identify who concocted the lane closure scheme (including all communications between Wildstein and Christie) and disclose all the machinations that took place as Christie hoped to evade responsibility for screwing tens of thousands of people and endangering almost as many while he searched for an open lane to the White House.

Port Authority rife with ugly politics

The scandal isn’t just that a top aide to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie ordered up massive gridlock at the Fort Lee entrance to the George Washington Bridge in retaliation for the Fort Lee mayor’s refusal to endorse Christie’s re-election bid. It’s that Port Authority officials went ahead with that political hit.

But the authority turned rancid a long time ago.
Governors started using the PA for unacceptable political ends way back in the ’60s — when Gov. Nelson Rockefeller got it to divert financial resources to building the World Trade Center. (His brother had just built an office tower downtown, and needed company for it.)
If Bridgegate proves anything, it’s that we need more checks and balances, not less.
Consider: The PA did provide some checks and balances — if Christie alone had run the GW Bridge, we’d still probably be in the dark (and in traffic). But that doesn’t change the fact that the agency regularly acts at the behest of sleazy political operatives.
New York and New Jersey voters deserve better. That means: no more patronage appointments. No more patronage projects.
And when either governor asks the Port Authority to do something rancid, it should just say “no.”
Nicole Gelinas is a contributing editor of the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal.

Friday, April 13, 2012

The Fallacy of Fairness as Fiscal Policy

I don't care what Warren Bufet's tax rate is. If he paid 1%, he'd probably stil pay 1000% percent more actual tax money than if I paid 100% of what I earn. Fairness is not a fiscal policy, because it is by definition a subjective concept. Yet Pres. Obama is camaigning for "the Buffet Rule," based on his idea of fairness.

"Fairness" is not a new theme for our President. I remember an interview from '09, where he was asked specificallly about getting less revenue by raising capital gains taxes, and he said he would sacrifice the tax revenue in the interest of fairness. I was dumbstruck. Maybe he didn't believe the premise of the question, or saw it as a political jab, so he used his fallback slogan: fairness.

When I was a liberal, I thought that more money was needed for the government to protect and serve the neediest amoung us. I was certain that raising taxes on everybody was fair. I was willing to give up another 1 or2% off of my pay, if if would expand the role of government in "helping" poor and needy people. In those days, I was making barely above minimum wage!

That's not what today's liberals think of as "fair," anymore. A good example of this is Pres. Obama's position on killing the "Bush tax cuts" (which he already renewed once, so they should be called the "Obama tax cuts"). The President set a line of $200K for singles, and $250K for couples as being "millionaires." People above that level will revert to the Clinton- era rates, while people below that line will retain the lower "Bush" rates that Obama ratified.

At the time this was first being debated under Pres. Obama, the CBO estimated the 10-year revenue from the "millionaire" part would be 700 billion, and undoing the Bush tax cuts for everyone else would bring in over 3 trillion during that same 10 years. Pres. Obama likes to talk about how good things were under the Clinton tax rates? Apparently, not good enough to get Democratic majorities in either house of congress to reinstate them.

Two years later, our president is still trying to divide American taxpayers along financial lines. He obviously thinks that "raising taxes on the rich" is a "no brainer" attack against Mitt Romney, and the GOP in general, with so many people struggling. The use of the word "fairness" by our president is getting old, though. People are realizing that the president has no control over fairness in their lives, regardless how much tax the rich pay.

Politics dictate that campaigns use poll-tested language to sell their policies, and "fairness" polls well. The policy it is being used in support of, though, is the classic "tax and spend" liberal progressive agenda: increase taxes, spending, and entitlements. Whether taxes are raised on the rich, or all of us, it won't help me, or the economy much. All it will do is feed the ravenous maw of government spending. That is the ugly truth that the president is hiding beneath his calls for fairness.

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Election Year, Again! Are Ya Happy With Pres. Obama?

2012 has been quite am interesting new year, in US politics. Limbaugh is still offending the left, and the right isn't bowing to the usual media pressure over it. President Obama is presiding over a recovering economy, but gas prices threaten to turn that around before the election. Were the Mayans right, and 2012 is "the end of the world" - at least as liberal politicians (like the president) know it?

Thursday, December 15, 2011

XL Pipeline Politics Attached To Middle Class Tax Cuts: House Gives Senate A "Poison Pill"

President Obama has indicated that he will veto any tax bill that has language forcing him to approve the Keystone XL pipeline project. The House has passed legislation to that end, and now the Senate will be forced to deal with the pipeline issue. That's not something Obama or the Senate Dem majority would like to deal with, right now

Look for it to be called a "poison pill" strategy, perpetrated by the House GOP, because they don't want to extend the payroll tax cut. Others, like me, will see it as linking tax cuts to greater employment, and daring the Dems to shoot it down. It's almost 2012, and both sides are pullin' out all the stops!

We'll have to see if Sen. Reid brings it up, but the pressure is enormous. I think it's perfect political Jiu Jitsu, with the GOP calling out the President with his own words... "pass this bill, now!" Remember, Reid didn't act on the President's jobs bill, so it would be a big-ass "cave" if he moves on an issue raised by the House GOP. Too bad, if it happens, because it will just prove that the "political center" has moved somewhat to the right, again. No hard feelings, just cold facts....

Let's see what the Senate does about sustaining this payroll tax cut. Nothing, or Something...

Sunday, October 16, 2011

"Fast and Furious" and "Solyndra" Show Incompetence, If Not Political Corruption

Two things that may combine to hurt the Obama Administration are the growing "Fast and Furious" scandal, where the US sold guns to the Mexican drug cartels, with no way of arresting anyone. The other is the scandal involving Solyndra, a bankrupt solar panel manufacturer based in California, which cost the US taxpayer around half a Billion dollars. Both are going to be thoroughly investigated in the near future, and the OA doesn't seem to have an adequate response, so far.

These are examples of stories the "in the tank for Obama" media stay away from, until they "have legs," meaning they get too big to ignore. While Solyndra is fading from the fleeting media mentions it got, it will not be the last "green" initiative of the OA's that will be scrutinized (link). Any other one (or more) that was a bad deal may end Obama's political chances at enacting any of that agenda. The Justice Department is investigating, but they can't afford another "cover-up" right now, which leads me to the second scandal...

"Fast and Furious" was an ill-designed operation, which consisted of telling gun shops and dealers to sell weapons illegally, and waiting to find out where they ended up, often after they'd used to kill someone. Eric Holder has yet to give his version of what this operation amounted to, but since he's called the House GOP's investigation "partisan," I'm guessing there's something he's hiding, for political reasons. It's always the coverup that's criminal, and AG Holder is stickin' to his story about only hearing about the operation "a few weeks" before his congressional testimony, on May 3rd. Now, he's claiming that the emails from a year earlier about the operation were not shown to him, or that he didn't read them. In other words, he's pleading ignorance, and incompetence, rather than a corrupt attempt to "cover up" an ill-conceived law enforcement operation (link).

These two scandals are "body blows" that this administration can't afford to let "drag out," but that seems to be their strategy. Right now, Dems seem happy to revel in the "Occupy Wall St (or name your city)" protests, because it is taking the media spotlight off of the OA's predicament. The "Wall St. protesters," and their cacophony of leftist cliches will fade, but these scandals, and the issues they raise about the OA will not go away. I expect Holder to go "under the bus" soon, but it won't look good, in any case.