Category Archives: Barrack Obama

Killing or Capturing bin Laden

Posted on by

An article in the October 2012 edition of the ABA Journal titled “Detention Dilemma” describes legal problems created by continuing to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba. One very interesting part of the article is an argument whether “…the balance between gaining detainee intelligence and the high cost of defending detention decisions has precipitated a shift away from detentions and toward targeted killings.” The article then says, “Taking the judge at her word–that the high court hinted at the need for more killings–would be profoundly unsettling.”

The official policy seems to have accepted the “hint” given by the high court. We are killing terrorists with drones instead of trying to capturing them. Another point for that argument is given by the accounts of the night bin Laden was killed. Those accounts lead me to believe there was no intention of taking him captive. He was said to have been killed when he raised a hand and his rifle was nearby. Continue reading →

The Benghazi Talking Points

Posted on by

Steve Hayes wrote an excellent article in the Weekly Standard about the editing of reports describing the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya that killed the ambassador and three other Americans. The was obviously done to make the narrative “politically acceptable” to the  administration during a Presidential election campaign. Click on the link if you want to be informed about the story. I expect there will be more information revealed as additional journalists decide they have to put aside their desire to protect President Obama and actually perform as journalists. If you chose to read this postings you will find that I consider the most important question that has not been asked is what did the Commander-In-Chief know and what did he do.   Continue reading →

Sequester and Social Security Withholding

Posted on by

Politicians are howling with threats about how bad things will be if the sequester legislation actually goes into effect two days after this posting. I can’t possibly list all the threats, but they include layoffs of first responders, teachers, air traffic controllers, and homeland security screeners. The President has warned that the unemployment rate will increase and the economy will suffer. All of this hysteria is over a cut of 85 billion dollars out of an annual budget of about 3.6 trillion dollars. We are being warned that the government cannot possibly manage a slightly smaller budget without draconian reductions in essential programs and harm to the economy. The same politicians issued barely a squeak of protest about the impact on families when they passed legislation that included an increase of two percent withholding from paychecks for Social Security. It would seem our legislators think citizens can easily adjust family budgets to deal with having two percent less money in their paychecks while the government cannot possibly find two percent of spending that is nonessential or at least less essential.

Where did the sequester idea originate? There is an interesting back and forth going on between Bob Woodward of Watergate fame and the White House. Mr. Woodward writes in his book “The Price of Politics” that sequester proposal originated within the White House. He adds that President Obama and the soon-to-be Treasury Secretary Jack Lew incorrectly accused during the campaign that the sequester proposal originated from House Republicans.

The White House first disputed Mr. Woodward’s version, but it seems they have decided they can’t dispute the facts. They are still arguing against the additional charge that “Obama is moving the goal posts by requiring that additional revenues be part of a sequester substitute.” The White House protests this assessment by saying the President has always considered that additional taxes must be part of any negotiations on budget issues. I’d say I agree with the White House, because President Obama’s campaign speeches, and all of his speeches are campaign speeches, have always advocated more tax income is needed. The Republicans mention that more tax income was added by the bill that avoided the “fiscal cliff.” Mr. Obama must think that bill that he signed into law didn’t add enough taxes.

Politicians will always think raising taxes is preferable to reducing the growth of government. They will also think the optimum amount of money they can spend is the current amount plus some additional amount. A slight reduction is enough to cause them to act the way they are now acting.

Benghazi–What Difference Does It Make

Posted on by

I have been astonished at the lack of attention given by several major media outlets to the attack in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans, including our ambassador to that country. I understand that many in the media did not want anything to distract the voting public from re-electing Mr. Obama. They apparently now do not want anything to get in the way if Hillary Clinton chooses to run in 2016. Perhaps that’s why there was little media criticism when Clinton responded to a question whether the attack was a spontaneous protest or an organized terrorist attack. “Was it a protest or is it because of guys out on a walk one night and they decide they would go kill some Americans?”What difference, at this point, does it make?” The media celebrated the “brilliance” and emotion of her response. I was appalled at her response. Continue reading →

Social Security Projections

Posted on by

The U.S. deficit continues to grow out of control, and there should have been actions taken to address the problem long before now. However, President Obama’s comments that the deficit is not a short term problem indicates to me we won’t do anything about the deficit for the next four years. Much of the problem is caused by “entitlement” commitments, and President Obama said in his inaugural address that he has no intention of doing anything about those either.

I’m baffled how the American people and the media are going along with the “don’t worry, be happy” approach. Looking at Social Security alone is frightening. A recent article by Chuck Saletta on the Motley Fool points out that each new analysis finds that the program will reach “financial unsustainability” sooner than the previous analyses. The Social Security Trustees reported in 2008 that problems would not be encountered until 2041. The date has now changed to 2033, and that is going to continue to move closer.

Money taken from employees and employers is invested in bonds, and bonds that mature must be replaced with new ones. The older bonds were yielding much more in interest than the ones currently available. The program is projected to earn $5.4 billion less in bond interest in 2012. The fact the Federal Reserve has recently said they are going to artificially keep interest rates low until the unemployment rate begins to drop means the revenue is not going to improve. Continue reading →

Fiscal Cliff Shenanigans

Posted on by

President Obama has repeatedly talked about imposing a “Warren Buffet Rule” for income taxes, which refers to the outrage he is said to feel that his wealthy supporter pays a lower income tax percentage than his secretary. Drilling down into the recently passed “Fiscal Cliff” bill that Mr. Obama signed into law reveals some curious aspects that don’t seem to be consistent with that position.

An article by Brad Plumer of the Washington Post gives a good start to understanding how much our elected leaders care about fair taxation. Section 322 provides a $9 billion tax break to manufacturers such as General Electric and big banks for what is called “active financing.” That section allows deferring U.S. taxes on overseas income. I’m not against helping U.S. companies be competitive in the global market. However, I recall Mitt Romney was chastised by the media for not pledging to end the provision which President Obama has now quietly signed it into law.

There are other aspects of the law that are even more curious. “Carried interest,” which is the share of profits paid to private equity and hedge fund investment managers are not taxed at the same rates as salaries. The new law will allow those payments to be taxed at a top rate of 20% for individuals earning over $400,000 or $450,000 for joint returns. If that one doesn’t bother you, how about a100 % exclusion on gains from qualified small business (QSB) stock held for at least five years. How many middle class Americans will benefit from that or have even ever heard of it? Continue reading →