---
What say Obama?
Will our president now attack Iran and provide the voters with a macho image that will catapult him back into the Oval Office or will he duck, as he has done virtually all his life, when the rubber hits the road? Will his antipathy towards 'Colonial Apartheid Israel' cloud and restrain his actions as he continues to berate that nation?
Can Obama overcome his innate D'Souza rage? I believe he will if he believes it equates with winning re-election. This is why I have raised the matter of "The Obama October Surprise?"
Ah, but if you look at Obama's "Taming of the Rogue Elephant" foreign policy as described by D'Souza, then it becomes highly problematic Obama will do anything other than obfuscate.
Why is this so? Again let's return to "The Roots of Obama's Rage" to find possible answers.
Barack Sr. was an economist but espoused a broad anti-colonial perspective that viewed the West, and specifically America, as an invader/occupier.
D'Souza does not believe Obama is anti-American. He believes Obama is seeking to radically change America's foreign policies which have been bad for the world. After all, though Americans do not see themselves as colonialists, we did displace native Indians, drafted the Monroe 'Manifest Destiny' Doctrine etc. Read "The Audacity of Hope," as I have, and you will find Obama's thinking there for all to see.
Then if you buy into the belief the spirit of Islam is the rock blocking the spread of imperialism you might begin to understand Obama's foreign policy initiatives all the way from apologizing for American arrogance to no more unilateral American attacks (Libya) and policies that are doomed to fail but create the appearance of prudent, calm and sophisticated judgement. (Nothing new here. Our State Department has been practicing this form of diplomacy for decades.)
Obama wants the world to see he is a different president who will tame 'Rogue America' and for this he received the Nobel Peace Prize.
Here again, we see Obama's rationale for Iranian sanctions but he is smart enough to know they will not work because Iran wants to possess a nuclear bomb in order to achieve Middle Eastern supremacy. Though Obama may not like a nuclear Iran he has no intention of using American military to stop them. (Unless, as I have stated above he believes it will put him beyond reach in achieving a second term.)
The political problem for Obama is, he cannot be seen adopting a ho-hum attitude. D'Souza writes, Obama believes America and Israel's nuclear arsenal pose a far greater danger to world stability than do Iranian bombs therefore, he must craft a strategy that creates the appearance of one likely to work.
This desire to curb American neo-colonial power explains so many of Obama's foreign policy efforts and actions. Again, why deny the Poles and Czechs a missile defense, why seek to reduce our nuclear stash with that of Russia's decaying one? D'Souza helps the reader understand Obama's desire to end occupation of Iraq, giving Gen. McChrystal less than what he asked for and coincidentally announcing our withdrawal(The cavalry is coming but not for long.) which caused the general's outburst and subsequent dismissal. The list of comparables grows to the point of becoming endless. Meanwhile, Obama still has the political problem of withdrawing from Afghanistan, 'his good war of necessity' without allowing the appearance of an American defeat while at the same time denying an American victory. Thus, his negotiations with the Taliban and the adminsitration's flip flop disparaging of Karzai.
D'Souza recites Lenin's view that capitalism is in an advanced stage of crisis and seeks to postpone its inevitable collapse by invading and occupying foreign countries etc. Obama believed GW was engaged in this in Iran or "the war of choice" but in "Audacity of Hope" Obama tended to support GW's 'War of Choice' based on the fact that he too accepted the intelligence reports. as he wrote: "I assumed Saddam had chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction and coveted nuclear arms. I believe he had repeatedly flouted UN resolutions and weapons inspectors and that such behavior had to have consequences."
Finally, D'Souza discusses Obama's solicitous treatment of terrorists and Islamic militants. From the anti-colonialist view they are simply resisting American imperialism and though that does not make them virtuous it places them on the right side of history. Thus, Obama and his lackey Attorney general, have been careful to define al Qaeda operatives not as terrorists or enemy combatants but as common criminals. The administration has also provided them with tax paid legal representation outside the constitutional scope, of course, because they are not U.S. citizens. But then, Obama frequently chooses to ignore that which he does not wish to see and which he cannot explain to the satisfaction of his opposition. With an accommodating press and media and that 'Obama Chorus' why the need to do so knowing he will not be deftly challenged.
For the moment, the combination of terrorist incompetence and sound counter intelligence work has protected our nation.
D'Souza does not suggest Obama wishes harm to our nation. Obama simply seems to want America to go the way of Kipling's Britain.
By crippling America's economy with debt, for the purpose of transferring wealth, Obama puts himself in the position of also being able to reduce funds for America's military rogue elephant status, thereby accomplishing his long term neo-colonial goal of diminishing American influence over world affairs.
Thus, we are left with two choices. We can give up on America or give up on this president. You will soon have the opportunity of deciding as November draws near. Time will tell. (See 1 and 1a below.)
But then another pacifist way out?(See 1b below)
---
The tale of Sharon Jasper! (See 2 below.)
What gives? Can this be? (See 2a below.)
---
Not "My Weekend With Bernie" but "Dinner With Bernie!" (See 3 below.)
---
Tomorrow , time permitting, I will conclude my three day review of D'Souza's book.
---
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Iran cuts down to six weeks timeline for weapons-grade uranium
Tehran this week hardened its nuclear and military policies in defiance of tougher sanctions and ahead of international nuclear talks. The threat by Iran’s armed forces deputy chief Gen. Mohammad Hejazi of a preemptive strike against its “enemies,” was accompanied by its refusal to allow UN nuclear watchdog inspectors to visit the Parchin facility, following which the IAEA chief cut their mission short.
Western and Israeli intelligence experts have concluded that the transfer of 20 percent uranium enrichment to the underground Fordo site near Qom has shortened Iran’s race for the 90 percent (weapons) grade product to six weeks.
The International Atomic Energy Agency chief Yukiya Amano said Tuesday night, Feb. 21: “It is disappointing that Iran did not accept our request to visit Parchin.” This is the site were Iran conducts experiments in nuclear explosives and triggers.
This diplomatic understatement came amid three major reverses in the quest for a non-military solution to halt Iran’s drive for a nuclear weapon:
1. Iran placed a large obstacle in the path of resumed negotiations with six world powers on which US President Barack Obama had pinned his strategy for averting a war to arrest its nuclear weapon program. This strategy depended heavily on Iran eventually consenting to making its nuclear projects fully transparent, as his National Security Adviser Tom Donilon assured Israeli leaders earlier this week.
The day after Donilon wound up his talks in Israel, the UN inspectors were sent packing empty-handed from Tehran, putting paid to any hope of transparency.
They were also denied an interview with Mohsen Fakrrizadeh, director of the Parchin project and also believed in the West to be the paramount head of Iran’s military nuclear program.
2. The transfer of 20 percent uranium enrichment to Fordo is taken by Western and Israel intelligence experts to have accelerated the pace of enriching large quantities of 20 percent enriched uranium to weapons grade and shortened to an estimated six weeks the time needed for arming a nuclear bomb after a decision in Tehran.
Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz explained to the US official that Israel cannot afford to live with an Iran capable of build a nuclear bomb in the space of few weeks.
3. The threat that Iran will not wait for “its enemies” – Israel and/or the US - to strike and will act first.
White House spokesman Jay Carney responded to these reverses by saying Tuesday night: “Israel and the United States share the same objective, which is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” adding, however, “There is time and space for diplomacy to work, for the effect of sanctions to result in a change of Iranian behavior.”
Seen from Israel, Iranian behavior has already changed - and for the worse. Its tactics in recent days have exacerbated the threat hanging over its head from Iran and brought it that much closer.
Senior Israeli military and intelligence sources said Wednesday, Feb. 22, that Israel’s strategic and military position in the Middle East has taken a sharp downturn. The failure of the IAEA mission and the threat of preemptive action from Tehran present the double threat of Iran’s earlier nuclear armament coupled with military action to sabotage Israel’s preparations for a strike on its nuclear facilities.
As one Israeli source put it: “Since Wednesday the rules of the game have changed.”
1a)Mideast Expert Phares: Obama Turns Blind Eye to Iranian Peril
By Jim Meyers and Kathleen Walter
Middle East expert Walid Phares tells Newsmax that the Obama administration is not convinced that the Iranians pose a serious danger — even as a top Iranian official declared that his country is prepared to launch a pre-emptive strike.
Phares, while noting that he believes the Iranian quest for nuclear weapons is “not stoppable,” also says a resolution passed in the U.S. Senate last week is a “message to the administration” that it is time to confront the Islamic republic before it obtains such weapons.
Coincidentally, Phares’ remarks in an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV on Tuesday came on the same day that an Iranian official vowed that his country would take pre-emptive action against its enemies if it felt its national interests were endangered.
"Our strategy now is that, if we feel our enemies want to endanger Iran's national interests, and want to decide to do that, we will act without waiting for their actions," said Mohammad Hejazi, the deputy head of the Islamic republic's armed forces.
Phares is the author of "The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad" and "The Coming Revolution: Struggle for Freedom in the Middle East." He is a regular Newsmax contributor and advises members of Congress on the Middle East.
In the exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, Phares says economic sanctions on the Iranians won’t persuade them to stop their nuclear weapons development efforts.
“The Iranian regime is convinced that they are going to go forward with their program,” he says.
“That program includes the nuclear weapon, but also the delivery system. They’re working very hard on missiles, both intercontinental when they can, and regional, and certainly they can put Israel, most of the Arab countries, Europe, Moscow, India, and our fleet in the Gulf and in the eastern Mediterranean in their range.
“But they are also going to try to negotiate gain time. In the meantime, the buildup of their weapons system is on. It’s not stoppable.”
Asked whether Israel will disregard urging from the United States not to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran, Phares responds: “Certainly the Israelis have their own clock that is different from the American clock, the European one, or the Arab one. It has to do with the width of Israel. It has to do with Israel unaccepting the idea that they could absorb one strike.
“So if the Iranian regime is very close to putting a weapon on a missile, then no questions asked, [the Israelis] are going to try to take action. They will try to coordinate with us or inform us at the end of the day.”
Phares adds: “What you see in Iran is preparation for confrontation, and if you don’t confront them it’s like the National Socialists in the ’30s. If you don’t stop them, they’re going to continue. After Czechoslovakia, it was Poland, then France. And after Iraq it’s Syria, and then Lebanon and eastern Arabia.
“It seems to me the Obama administration is not convinced that the Iranians are really a threat. It is convinced that they are a nuisance, and a deal eventually after those sanctions would work. That’s the view of this administration.
“But what we have now in the Middle East is way more dangerous than what we had before, even after the killing of bin Laden and after the Arab spring. What we have now is an Iran that is much closer to the bomb. And you have the rest of the Middle East falling slowly under the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood.”
The United States needs to contain Iran and the jihadists and partner with real democratic forces in the Middle East that are ready to work with America, Phares says.
A bipartisan group of senators passed a resolution last week declaring that it is unacceptable for Iran to obtain a nuclear capability.
“This is a necessary move,” Phares observes.
“These moves are basically coming a little bit late in the process, but they are always important. This is a message to the administration — a message to all the presidential campaigns — that we need to keep in mind that, while we are going into our political processes here the Iranians are moving forward, and there will be a day when if we don’t check them they will come and say here’s our weapon and you’ve got to deal with us as a nuclear force. That is what the Congress does not want to see happening.”
As for Iran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, where 20 percent of the world’s oil passes, Phares tells Newsmax: “The Iranians don’t need to shut down the Strait of Hormuz. They need to threaten, and that’s what is happening.
“That’s why the prices are going up. Americans have to be very careful about the next stage because what we see now in terms of prices may go well higher than what we are accustomed to.”
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
1b)How to Talk Down Tehran's Nuclear Ambitions
Before deciding on war or containment, the West should offer a good-faith compromise to the mullahs and the Iranian people.
By RICHARD HAASS AND MICHAEL LEVI
After months of escalating tensions, Iran has indicated a willingness to restart talks over its nuclear program with the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany. The United States and the other countries should take Iran up on its offer with a firm proposal of their own.
Iran is motivated by pain from economic sanctions that have made it more difficult for Tehran to sell oil and have weakened its currency, thereby raising the cost of essential imports. Iran's leaders are also concerned that their country could be the target of military attacks from Israel, the U.S. or both.
It is in the American interest to pursue a negotiated outcome to the current impasse. The reason is straightforward. Sanctions and clandestine efforts will not succeed in stopping Iran's nuclear advance at an acceptable plateau or in undermining the regime—and the two principal alternatives to diplomacy promise to be costly and risky.
One alternative is to go to war with a classic preventive attack. This would likely delay the Iranian program, but perhaps not for more than a few years. Moreover, whatever is destroyed will likely be rebuilt in a manner that makes future attacks more difficult. An attack also could trigger retaliation and set in motion a chain of events that leads to widespread loss of life and a massive increase in oil prices.
The other alternative to negotiations is to live with an Iran that possesses one or more nuclear weapons, or that is perpetually on the verge of being able to. But a nuclear Iran would place the region on a hair trigger: The incentive of Iran or Israel to strike first in a crisis would be great, while other countries (including Egypt and Saudi Arabia) would be tempted to acquire nuclear weapons of their own. An Iran backed with nuclear weapons might be even more aggressive in pursuit of its aims to become a regional hegemon. And no one could rule out the possibility that nuclear material might end up in the hands of terrorist groups backed by Tehran.
This makes negotiations worth exploring, even though they are unlikely to resolve the problem for all time. Iran will not do away with its nuclear program, which is simply too extensive and enjoys too much political support among Iranians. No Iranian government could forfeit the "right to enrich" and survive.
Negotiations need to achieve meaningful results if they are to be embraced. The guiding principle is that Tehran must allow intrusive inspections and limits on its nuclear activities so that it cannot complete a dash for the bomb without providing the world with enough advance warning to react. This means enabling international inspectors to visit suspected nuclear facilities, not simply those declared by Iran. Stepped-up inspections should focus on providing continuous surveillance, whether electronically or by full-time inspectors, of enriched uranium stocks and output from Iran's nuclear facilities.
Placing physical limits on the Iranian program would involve steps to convert Iran's growing stocks of enriched uranium into fuel for its reactors, which is the regime's stated purpose. This would lengthen the time it would take to convert any nuclear material into bomb material. Tehran should be required to reconfigure its enrichment facilities so that they only produce reactor fuel, rather than medium or highly enriched uranium. Iran has produced five years worth of medium-enriched uranium for its medical reactor—so anything more only makes sense as part of a military program. Limits to the scale of Iranian facilities, and on the deployment of new technologies, are also essential.
In exchange for such concessions, the world should offer to dial back the most recent sanctions (including those not yet fully implemented) that target the Iranian oil and financial sectors. But no existing sanctions should be eased (or new sanctions delayed) as a reward for Iran's agreeing to talk, lest negotiations prove to be nothing more than a tactic. And sanctions aimed at firms and individuals involved in illicit nuclear activities—particularly those associated with military efforts—would need to stay. So, too, would other sanctions prompted by Iranian violations of human rights, support for terrorism, and threats to regional security beyond its nuclear program.
Iran might well reject this deal. Many Iranians see their nuclear program as a symbol of national greatness and a guarantee against invasion and attempts to oust the regime. Moreover, even if some Iranian leaders are inclined toward making a deal, others may remain opposed. Just two years ago, a split between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei scuttled a modest agreement that would have slowed Iran's nuclear program.
One way to increase the odds that a deal would be accepted is to make the outlines of any compromise public. The Iranian people would then be able to see that the world was not trying to humiliate Iran but rather offering it something fair, if only Iran's leaders would agree. Political pressure could grow on those leaders to accept the compromise, gain relief from sanctions and avoid military attack.
But even if public pressure fails to induce Iran's leaders to compromise, negotiations still make sense. Before the decision is made to embrace alternatives that promise to be costly, it is important to demonstrate—to domestic and world opinion alike—that a reasonable policy was explored. The political, economic, military and human responsibility for any conflict should be with Iran if that is where we end up.
Mr. Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations, where Mr. Levi is a senior fellow.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Sharon Jasper: Obama's Vision For America
By Lloyd Marcus
Sharon Jasper could be the poster child for Obama's re-election campaign. Ms. Jasper has lived on the dole 57 of her 58 years. She was moved out of the St. Bernard housing project after hurricane Katrina. Her current home is a voucher-backed apartment in a private residence. Speaking to a New Orleans Times-Picayune reporter, Jasper said, "...it's pitiful what people give you."
Ms. Jasper, the key word is "give." We taxpayers do not owe you anything. How dare you whine and complain?
This ungrateful, arrogant, entitlement-minded woman called her apartment a "slum." Jasper allowed a photographer to tour her subsidized apartment. She complained about missing window screens, a slow leak in a sink, a warped back door, and a few other details of her residence. Otherwise, Jasper's apartment appeared to have been recently renovated.
Jasper's "slum" also featured hardwood floors and a 60-inch HD TV.
At a New Orleans City Council meeting about whether or not to tear down the dilapidated St Bernard projects, Ms. Jasper verbally attacked a white male in attendance, saying, "I will not be treated like a slave!" and "Back up and Shut up! Shut up, white boy! Shut up, white boy!"
Sharon Jasper should be ashamed of herself. Jasper's shamelessness confirms how deeply our culture is infected with an entitlement mindset. Please do not write me about how I am beating up on the poor. I am not. I have known Sharon Jasper in various forms all of my life, including in my own family. I have witnessed firsthand the devastating toll cradle-to-grave government dependency has taken on the human spirit and the wasted lives left in its wake. So please, do not preach to me about liberals' good intentions or tell me I simply do not support my fellow blacks.
Sharon Jasper epitomizes the type of voter Obama seeks and is working to create. With more Americans than ever on food stamps and half the country receiving government assistance in some form or another, Obama is cloning Sharon Jasper. Unquestionably, Obama is putting all his re-election eggs into his Sharon Jasper basket.
As callous, self-serving and heartless as drug dealers, the Democrats are government-dependency dealers. Hooking as many Americans as possible on government dependency secures the Democrats' voting bloc of government-dependency junkies. Every election, Democrats will promise to increase the dosage of freebies.
But somewhere down the road, workers/taxpayers will revolt! "Screw it! I ain't workin' no more for the government to take it and give it away."
I cannot begin to express how painful it is for me to see lazy, "triflin'" (as my mom used to call them) do-nothings getting over on hardworking taxpayers and being celebrated by the president of the United States. Obama treats deadbeat entitlement junkies like saints, superior to working Americans. Mr Obama, we are a not a bunch of slackers. We are Americans, doggone-it! We work! Quoting Larry the Cable Guy, we "git-r-done"!
I will tell you who are the "real" saints: the small business owner I met in Kansas. For ten years, (think about that for a moment, ten years), a few of his employees earned more than he did in his meat-processing business. Through failures and personal and financial hardships, he kept the business going. Today, he employs 500 people. This small businessman is a hero! And yet, Obama has targeted this man's extremely hard-earned wealth for redistribution, all the while portraying him as a selfish villain. Despicable. Mr. Obama, that's anti-American!
Some of you patriots still do not get it. You write me long e-mails explaining the sins of Newt and Santorum and how if Ron Paul does not win the nomination, you're sitting this election out. Well, that is just plain wrong and crazy. While I have my favorite, at this stage of the game, I will support whoever wins the nomination! What part of "Obama will end America as we know it" do you not understand?
The argument that the "wrong Republican" in the White House is just as bad as Obama confirms a naivety of the depths of Obama's far-left radical- and Rev. Jeremiah Wright-inspired hatred for America. Obviously, you do not comprehend the seriousness of the unique situation we find ourselves in as Americans. On their worst day, none of our candidates are as devastating to our freedom, liberty, and culture as Obama is.
And to all you people who write me saying both political parties are corrupt and so what's the point in Tea Partying, voting, or even trying, I will not embrace your defeatist attitude. When ten out of twelve spies for Israel said they could not defeat the giants, God called their report "evil." To all you folks who say America is too far gone and we should simply give up, I say take your "evil" report elsewhere!
I love my country and trust God too much to surrender the greatest nation on the planet to those who would destroy her. Don't know 'bout y'all, but I'm fightin' for my country 'til the Lord takes me home.
Mr. Obama, Sharon Jasper is not America! We will not allow you to turn us into a nation of Sharon Jaspers! Sharon Jasper is not my America!
Lloyd Marcus, proud unhyphenated American, is the chairman of The Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama and the spokesperson for the Tea Party Express. Lloyd is an author of Confessions of a Black Conservative, foreword by Michelle Malkin. LloydMarcus.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Obama's Dividend Assault
A plan to triple the tax rate would hurt all shareholders.
President Obama's 2013 budget is the gift that keeps on giving—to government. One buried surprise is his proposal to triple the tax rate on corporate dividends, which believe it or not is higher than in his previous budgets.
Mr. Obama is proposing to raise the dividend tax rate to the higher personal income tax rate of 39.6% that will kick in next year. Add in the planned phase-out of deductions and exemptions, and the rate hits 41%. Then add the 3.8% investment tax surcharge in ObamaCare, and the new dividend tax rate in 2013 would be 44.8%—nearly three times today's 15% rate.
Keep in mind that dividends are paid to shareholders only after the corporation pays taxes on its profits. So assuming a maximum 35% corporate tax rate and a 44.8% dividend tax, the total tax on corporate earnings passed through as dividends would be 64.1%.
In previous budgets, Mr. Obama proposed an increase to 23.8% on both dividends and capital gains. That's roughly a 60% increase in the tax on investments, but at least it would maintain parity between taxes on capital gains and dividends, a principle established as part of George W. Bush's 2003 tax cut.
With the same rate on both forms of income, the tax code doesn't bias corporate decisions on whether to retain and reinvest profits (and allow the earnings to be capitalized into the stock price), or distribute the money as dividends at the time they are earned.
Of course, the White House wants everyone to know that this new rate would apply only to those filthy rich individuals who make $200,000 a year, or $250,000 if you're a greedy couple. We're all supposed to believe that no one would be hurt other than rich folks who can afford it.
The truth is that the plan gives new meaning to the term collateral damage, because shareholders of all incomes will share the pain. Here's why. Historical experience indicates that corporate dividend payouts are highly sensitive to the dividend tax. Dividends fell out of favor in the 1990s when the dividend tax rate was roughly twice the rate of capital gains.
When the rate fell to 15% on January 1, 2003, dividends reported on tax returns nearly doubled to $196 billion from $103 billion the year before the tax cut. By 2006 dividend income had grown to nearly $337 billion, more than three times the pre-tax cut level. The nearby chart shows the trend.
Shortly after the rate cut, Microsoft, which had never paid a dividend, distributed $32 billion of its retained earnings in a special dividend of $3 per share. According to a Cato Institute study, 22 S&P 500 companies that didn't pay dividends before the tax cut began paying them in 2003 and 2004.
As former Citigroup CEO Sandy Weill explained at the time: "The recent change in the tax law levels the playing field between dividends and share repurchases as a means to return capital to shareholders. This substantial increase in our dividend will be part of our effort to reallocate capital to dividends and reduce share repurchases."
And that's what happened. An American Economic Association study by University of California at Berkeley economists Raj Chetty and Emmanuel Saez examined dividend payouts by firms and concluded that "the tax reform played a significant role in the [2003 and 2004] increase in dividend payouts." They also found that the incentive for firms to pay dividends rather than sit on cash helped "reshuffle" capital from lower growth firms to "ventures with greater expected value," thus increasing capital-market efficiency.
If you reverse the policy, you reverse the incentives. The tripling of the dividend tax will have a dampening effect on these payments.
Who would get hurt? IRS data show that retirees and near-retirees who depend on dividend income would be hit especially hard. Almost three of four dividend payments go to those over the age of 55, and more than half go to those older than 65, according to IRS data.
But all American shareholders would lose. Higher dividend and capital gains taxes make stocks less valuable. A share of stock is worth the discounted present value of the future earnings stream after taxes. Stock prices would fall over time to adjust to the new after-tax rate of return. And if investors become convinced later this year that dividend and capital gains taxes are going way up on January 1, some investors are likely to sell shares ahead of paying these higher rates.
The question is how this helps anyone. According to the Investment Company Institute, about 51% of adults own stock directly or through mutual funds, which is more than 100 million shareholders. Tens of millions more own stocks through pension funds. Why would the White House endorse a policy that will make these households poorer?
Seldom has there been a clearer example of a policy that is supposed to soak the rich but will drench almost all American families.
2a)Brown Surges in Massachusetts
In a new survey, Republican Sen. Scott Brown holds a decisive lead over Democrat Elizabeth Warren in the race for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts.
By MATTHEW PAYNE
Republican Sen. Scott Brown holds a decisive lead over Democrat Elizabeth Warren in the race for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts. According to a new Suffolk University/7NEWS (WHDH-Boston) survey, the freshman senator garners 49% of the vote -- nine points ahead of his main Democratic rival. It's the first time a poll put Mr. Brown in the lead since last fall. Suffolk University was also the first to show Mr. Brown ahead in 2010 when he upset state Attorney General Martha Coakley.
That upset was driven largely by the independent vote. And the new poll shows Mr. Brown again heavily drawing his support from this group of voters. Among the 52% of respondents who identified themselves as independent, 60% supported Mr. Brown while only 28% supported Ms. Warren.
The survey suggests there's a reason independent voters favor the Massachusetts senator. And it has to do with the perception of Ms. Warren as a liberal Democrat. When asked what word first came to mind when respondents heard the name Elizabeth Warren, "liberal" was a top reply. On the other hand when asked what came to mind when they heard the name Scott Brown, "independent" and "fair/fair person" were among the top responses.
Mr. Brown is working hard to earn both those titles. He even invoked the name of late-Sen. Ted Kennedy in the most recent debate over whether religious institutions should be forced to provide contraception services to employees. In an email to supporters, Mr. Brown quoted a 2009 letter Mr. Kennedy wrote to Pope Benedict XVI which assured Rome that "conscience protection for Catholics in the healthcare field" would be a part of any national health-care policy.
Using Kennedy's position to make a conservative point is no easy task. But it's a case in point of how Mr. Brown manages to keep this race competitive in an overwhelmingly Democratic state.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Barton: Dinner with Bernie
By Tom Barton
Bernie Marcus, who brought his message of pro-capitalism and anti-Obama-ism to Savannah Monday night, is a cheerleader for the free enterprise system.
And why not?
He earned a fortune with the Home Depot Corp., the Atlanta-based company he co-founded in 1978. Forbes magazine listed his net worth last September at $1.8 billion. That’s a lot of lumber, house paint and plumbing fixtures going out the door.
But Marcus is no greedhead. He believes in sharing wealth. He just thinks it’s better to do it his way (rewarding those who work and sacrifice to create it), and not the president’s way (sticking a bigger hand in the creators’ pockets).
He had the perfect case study: His own company.
“We asked our people to take a third to 50 percent less if they bought into Home Depot,” Marcus told about 350 people attending the Skidaway Island Republican Club President’s Day dinner at the Plantation Club ballroom.
“We asked them to work 15- to 18-hour days for five or six years, and if they did that, it would pay off. I believe that’s the American system. When you work long hours, you should be allowed to keep the spoils.”
And how did that work out for Depot-ites who took less pay and worked their tails off?
“Home Depot created 4,000 millionaires,” Marcus said. “How good is that?” Good enough to wish that America had more business leaders like Bernie Marcus.
Marcus is no longer the boss at Home Depot, which grew from just four stores in the Atlanta area to 2,000 stores and 300,000 associates nationwide. He retired in 2002. But after watching him speak, you get the impression that the sharp, fit 82-year-old Atlanta resident hasn’t given up on sales.
If anything, he may be a more energetic pitchman now than back in 1978. That’s when he and partner Arthur Blank had to go to California to find a bank that would loan them the money to open a chain of home improvement stores because “not a single bank in Atlanta would give us a dime of credit.”
What Marcus sells now isn’t sheetrock. It’s the idea that free enterprise and profit are healthy concepts, not the roots of evil.
And quite frankly, this son of poor Jewish immigrants from Russia sounded worried. He challenged his older, largely successful audience to get off its duff, work their connections and crusade for the cause. “Every one in this room owes it to give back to the free enterprise system,” he said. “Otherwise, if nothing changes, in four more years you can take your Rolodexes and sink them into the marshes out there.”
Marcus is involved in the Job Creators Alliance, a nonprofit organization dedicated to spreading the gospel of free enterprise. The group wants a simpler tax code, fewer tax loopholes and limits on entitlements. It seeks fewer regulations for small businesses, which Marcus said creates 80 to 90 percent of the nation’s jobs.
“Home Depot wouldn’t be here today” if the same rules in effect now were on the books in 1978,” he said. He fears the dream of working hard to get ahead “will be gone forever” if the Democratic president sticks around.
So who does he like as a Republican nominee? He wouldn’t say. But he’s not a fan of ongoing mud bath known as the GOP primaries. “I hope it goes to a brokered convention,” he said. “I’m sick and tired of all of them.”
Marcus told his audience that “I’m part of the filthy rich and I’m proud of it.” Yet said he and Blank never took stock options, which likely would have made them obscenely rich. “We chose to give it to people across the board in our company.”
Those were the days — the days Marcus said America needs back.
Tom Barton is the editorial page editor of the Savannah Morning News.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment