Rick Santelli's Chicago Tea Party |
- Payroll tax cut won’t cover Obama gas price rise
- The Cost of Obama
- Preschooler’s Homemade Lunch Replaced with Cafeteria “Nuggets”
- Canada unveils new cyber monitoring rules
- Decision time for researchers of deadly bird
- Neither Republican contender fits the Tea Party ideal
- Rick Santelli On The Difference Between Tea Party And Occupy Movement
| Payroll tax cut won’t cover Obama gas price rise Posted: 15 Feb 2012 08:37 AM PST By: Paul Bedard, The Washington Examiner Forget all the happy talk about how Americans, flush with their $1,000 payroll tax cut set to be extended by Congress, will be hitting the mall to spend, spend, spend. That cool grand won’t even cover the surge in gas prices under President Obama and will have to be nearly doubled if summer predictions of $5 regular come true. The math is simple: according to government and consumer group figures, Americans pay an average of $1,010 more a year for gas than they did on President Obama’s Inauguration Day in January 2009. The payroll tax cut, which Americans already receive, is a maximum of $1,000. That means the tax cut, which Congress has agreed to extend, falls $10 short of paying American’s gas bill even before they hit the malls or pawn shops. Here’s how it breaks down. When Obama came into office, gas averaged about $1.84, according to Consumer Reports. Americans drive an average of 13,476 miles a year, said the Department of Transportation. And the current average American mpg is 22.4 gallons. That means drivers buy an average of 601 gallons of gas a year. Today, a gallon of regular averages $3.52, a three year difference of $1.68, meaning Americans are paying $1,010 more a year than in January 2009. And if gas surges to $5 as some reports suggest, that means Americans will end up paying $1,899 more than when Obama came into office, nearly twice the value of the payroll tax cut. To read more, visit: http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/payroll-tax-cut-wont-cover-obama-gas-hike/376426 |
| Posted: 15 Feb 2012 08:34 AM PST BY JEFFREY H. ANDERSON, WeeklyStandard.com President Obama's fourth budget has now been released, which allows for a relatively full accounting of deficit spending during his four years in office. The picture isn't pretty, but it is revealing. According to the White House's own figures (see table S-1 here for 2011 to 2013, and table S-1 here for 2010), the actual or projected deficit tallies for the four years in which Obama has submitted budgets are as follows: $1.293 trillion in 2010, $1.300 trillion in 2011, $1.327 trillion in 2012, and $901 billion in 2013. In addition, Obama is responsible for the estimated $200 billion (the Congressional Budget Office's figure) that his economic "stimulus" added to the deficit in 2009. Moreover, he shouldn't get credit for the $149 billion in TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) repayments made in 2010 and 2011 to cover most of the $154 billion in bank loans that remained unpaid at the end of the 2009 fiscal year — loans that count against President Bush's 2009 deficit tally. Adding all of this up, deficit spending during Obama's four years in the White House (based on his own figures) will be an estimated $5.170 trillion — or $5,170,000,000,000.00. To help put that colossal sum of money into perspective, if you take our deficit spending under Obama and divide it evenly among the roughly 300 million American citizens, that works out to just over $17,000 per person — or about $70,000 for a family of four. The previous record for most deficit spending during a presidency was set by President George W. Bush (see table 1.3 in the White House's Historic Tables). During Bush's 8-year administration, total deficit spending was $3.402 trillion. That's a truly extraordinary and reckless sum. It's also $1.768 trillion less than deficit spending in just four years under Obama. Per year, deficits under Bush averaged $425 billion. Per year, deficits under Obama (according to his own numbers) will average $1.293 trillion — or more than three times as much. Because the gross domestic product (GDP) nearly always grows from year to year, the most favorable way to view Obama's deficit spending is as a percentage of GDP. Surely he can't look as bad in that light, right? To read more, visit: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/painful-cost-obama_629745.html |
| Preschooler’s Homemade Lunch Replaced with Cafeteria “Nuggets” Posted: 15 Feb 2012 08:31 AM PST By Sara Burrows, Carolinajournal.com RAEFORD – A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because a state employee told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious. The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was inspecting all lunch boxes in her More at Four classroom that day. The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs – including in-home day care centers – to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home. When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones. The girl’s mother – who said she wishes to remain anonymous to protect her daughter from retaliation – said she received a note from the school stating that students who did not bring a “healthy lunch” would be offered the missing portions, which could result in a fee from the cafeteria, in her case $1.25. “I don’t feel that I should pay for a cafeteria lunch when I provide lunch for her from home,” the mother wrote in a complaint to her state representative, Republican G.L. Pridgen of Robeson County. To read more, visit: http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/homemade-lunch-replaced-with-cafeteria-nuggets.html |
| Canada unveils new cyber monitoring rules Posted: 15 Feb 2012 08:28 AM PST From: Breitbart.com Canada’s government Tuesday introduced a bill to give law enforcement authorities sweeping powers to probe online communications, but the move sparked criticism about threats to privacy. “New technologies provide new ways of committing crimes, making them more difficult to investigate,” Justice Minister Rob Nicholson told a press conference in unveiling the measure. “This legislation will enable authorities to keep pace with rapidly changing technology.” Opposition parties and civil liberties groups, however, said new police powers contained in the bill could result in unreasonable searches and seizures. Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart, whose office is independent from the government, said in a letter to Public Safety Minister Vic Toews last October she had “deep concerns” about the proposed changes, which she said could have “serious repercussions for privacy rights.” “I recognize that rapid developments in communication technologies are creating new challenges for law enforcement and national security authorities and that the Internet cannot be a lawless zone,” Stoddart said. But “by expanding the legal tools of the state to conduct surveillance and access private information, and by reducing the depth of judicial scrutiny… (the bill would allow the) government to subject more individuals to surveillance and scrutiny.” To read more, visit: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.0f0f45ab01c8fa04e4b488d1b8562ee9.181&show_article=1 |
| Decision time for researchers of deadly bird Posted: 15 Feb 2012 08:25 AM PST By Kate Kelland and Stephanie Nebehay, Reuters.com When 22 bird flu experts meet at the World Health Organization this week, they will be tasked with deciding just how far scientists should go in creating lethal mutant viruses in the name of research. The hurriedly assembled meeting is designed to try to settle an unprecedented row over a call to ban publication of two scientific studies which detail how to mutate H5N1 bird flu viruses into a form that could cause a deadly human pandemic. But experts say whatever the outcome, no amount of censorship, global regulation or shutting down of research projects could stop rogue scientists getting the tools to create and release a pandemic H5N1 virus if they were intent on evil. “It doesn’t matter how much you restrict scientists from doing good, bad people can still do bad things,” said Wendy Barclay, an expert in flu virology at Imperial College London. The WHO called the meeting, for February 16 and 17 in Geneva, to work out how to break a deadlock between scientists who have studied the mutations needed to make H5N1 transmit between mammals and U.S. biosecurity chiefs who want their work censored or “redacted” before it goes into scientific journals. Since the two research teams, one in the Netherlands and one in the United States, have found that just a small number of mutations would allow H5N1 to spread like ordinary flu between mammals – and remain just as deadly as it is now – the meeting is likely to be tense and highly secretive. WHO officials repeatedly stress it will be a “closed door” event. To read more, visit: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/14/us-birdflu-who-meeting-idUSTRE81D0W820120214 |
| Neither Republican contender fits the Tea Party ideal Posted: 15 Feb 2012 08:23 AM PST By Jennifer Rubin, WashingtonPost.com Yesterday, a number of free-market economists and advocates voiced concern about the central feature of Rick Santorum's economic policy. In short, Santorum picking winners (manufacturing) and losers (non-manufacturing) is no better than President Obama doing it — neither has the expertise to outwit the free market. Moreover, given that manufacturing has improved productivity (by slimming down while raising output), a zero tax rate for such firms isn't likely to be the best way to promote jobs. These are firms that have succeeded by minimizing their workforce. Other conservatives are beginning to fret about Santorum's economic record as well. Phil Klein, who has been about the most ferocious critic of Mitt Romney out there, says of Santorum: "As a Senator from Pennsylvania, Santorum took earmarks, pushed a support program for dairy farmers, sided with unions and backed steel tariffs. In these instances, when free market principles clashed with local concerns, he abandoned limited government conservatives." Phil's colleague Conn Carroll goes even further, arguing, "Santorum is a perfectly decent alternative Romney. He may even be a more electable alternative to Romney. But he is not a conservative alternative to Romney." Well, not economically more conservative, perhaps. Let's be honest: Neither of these guys is as fiscally conservative (or as consistent) as Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), to pick an example. Club for Growth described Santorum's record this way: "On the whole, Rick Santorum's record on economic issues in the U.S. Senate was above average. More precisely, it was quite strong in some areas and quite weak in others. He has a strong record on taxes, and his leadership on welfare reform and Social Security was exemplary. But his record also contains several very weak spots, including his active support of wasteful spending earmarks, his penchant for trade protectionism, and his willingness to support large government expansions like the Medicare prescription drug bill and the 2005 Highway Bill. As president, Santorum would most likely lead the country in a pro-growth direction, but his record contains more than a few weak spots that make us question if he would resist political expediency when it comes to economic issues." In particular, would he stand up to the spending addiction of both Democrats and Republicans? Not clear. Romney doesn't have a record of protectionism or Big Labor coziness. But if Santorum has No Child Left Behind (the quintessential top-down federal government program) and Medicare Part D ( an unpaid for entitlement, albeit with market features), Romney has RomneyCare. However, on spending, Romney's record may actually be superior to Santorum's. CFG put it this way: "The Massachusetts Legislature was (and continues to be) dominated by Democrats more interested in raising taxes than cutting government programs. Throughout his tenure, Romney's proposed cuts were met with opposition while the vast majority of his vetoes were relegated to the graveyard of overrides. On balance, his record comes out more positive than negative, especially when one considers that average spending increased only 2.22% over his four years, well below the population plus inflation benchmark of nearly 3%." He also "attempted to cut down on government spending by streamlining many duplicative and wasteful elements of Beacon Hill. Some of his more ambitious proposals were rejected by his uber-liberal Legislature." In short, neither one of these candidates is a government minimalist. Romney, as a man marinated in the private sector, may be more conservative than Santorum on tax, spending, trade and labor issues. On tax policy, Santorum's manufacturing-friendly proposal is bad tax policy; Romney's plan is yet to be unveiled. On health policy, Romney's past continues to haunt him. To read more, visit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/neither-republican-contender-fits-the-tea-party-ideal/2012/02/14/gIQAZPkPFR_blog.html |
| Rick Santelli On The Difference Between Tea Party And Occupy Movement Posted: 15 Feb 2012 08:20 AM PST By: Rick Santelli, FOX Nation While the vandals are on the street corners, the Tea Party conservatives they're working state houses, the governorships, the mayorships, the Senate, the House. See, they understand, they've read the Constitution. If you want to make a difference, don’t go break windows, okay? Break some phony arguments that things like austerity are going to put you in the hole. What put you in the hole is borrowing 38 cents of every dollar you spent. That's what put you in the hole, pure and simple. Everything else is political spin. To read more, visit: http://nation.foxnews.com/rick-santelli/2012/02/15/rick-santelli-difference-between-tea-party-and-occupy-movement |
| You are subscribed to email updates from RE Tea Party To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment