Video clip of the day

.

Here's Matt Welch, editor-in-chief of Reason Magazine on the shameful and deceitful "Buffet Rule" campaign.


.




Yeah, why the hell are we paying for Warren Buffet's Medicare?




We say shameful and deceitful because the President and his water-carriers are deliberately conflating two completely different tax rates in order to score cheap political points.

The hue and cry of Buffet's poor secretary being taxed at a higher rate than Buffet himself doesn't hold up to scrutiny when, obviously, the woman who makes between $200,000 and $500,000 will be taxed at a higher marginal rate (up to 35%) than Buffet who grants himself an annual salary of only $100,000.

Where Buffet acrues most of his income is in capital gains where the tax rate is only 15%. As Welch suggests, if Obama and Buffet were truly being honest and had the courage of their convictions, what they should be calling for is a 35% tax on capital gains. Cue: complete economic meltdown.

Of course, that's not what they are calling for but instead they trot out Buffet's 1 pecenter secretary (so far as making her a guest at the State of the Union address last Tuesday evening) as the poster child for the Occupy-approved message of "fairness" and income inequality.

As of yet, no one, least of all our increasingly cynical and desparate chief executive has explained to us how taxing the rich will cure unemployment, reduce the debt and be, ultimately, the pro-growth policy this country's economy so needs. But it isn't about any of the above... it's all about getting re-elected to do what, exactly, we're not quite sure.


Small wonder when we've been told it's food stamps and unemployment bennies that are the drivers of the nation's economic engine.

.

Things we all know but choose to ignore anyway

.

News flash No. 1: People, particularly rich people who have the means to do so, will alter their behavior, acting upon their own self-interests, to avoid having to pay higher taxes... People just like Warren Buffet!


News flash No. 2: Higher tax rates do not necessarily bring in the anticipated revenue.




Quite unexpectedly, a higher marginal tax rate on the rich in England did not bring in the anticipated additional tax revenue.



From The Telegraph:

The amount of income tax paid fell sharply last month in the first formal indication that the new 50p higher rate is not raising the expected amount of revenue.

The Treasury received £10.35 billion in income tax payments from those paying by self-assessment last month, a drop of £509 million compared with January 2011. Most other taxes produced higher revenues over the same period.

Senior sources said that the first official figures indicated that there had been “manoeuvring” by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate. The figures will add to pressure on the Coalition to drop the levy amid fears it is forcing entrepreneurs to relocate abroad.

The self-assessment returns from January, when most income tax is paid by the better-off, have been eagerly awaited by the Treasury and government ministers as they provide the first evidence of the success, or failure, of the 50p rate. It is the first year following the introduction of the 50p rate which had been expected to boost tax revenues from self-assessment by more than £1billion.

Although the official statistics do not disclose how much money was paid at the 50p rate of tax, the figures indicate that it is falling short of the money the levy was expected to raise.

A Treasury source said the relatively poor revenues from self-assessment returns was partly down to highly-paid individuals arranging their affairs to avoid paying the 50p rate.

“It’s true that SA revenues are a bit disappointing — it’s still early, but it looks like there’s been quite a lot of forestalling and other manoeuvring to avoid the top rate,” said the source.

Manoeuvring... Arranging their affairs...

You better believe there was a whole lot of that going with the evil 1-percenters of England. Who wants to pay higher taxes? Warren Buffet, despite his calls for higher taxes on the rich, sure doesn't.

Why else would he pay himself a salary of only $100,000 while receiving the vast majority of his income from capital gains that gets taxed at a much lower rate (15%) than would income tax on, say, a $200,000 salary.

Buffet and his hypocritical "Millionaire Patriots" can certainly pay more in taxes should they so choose. They simply choose manoeuver not to do so.




We'll let New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie, summarize this whole shamefully deceitful situation much better than we:

"Just a write a check and shut up."

heh.

.

Confirmed: it really is about class warfare

.

We knew it all along, however, credit them for their honesty but the White House finally admitted that higher taxes on the rich via the Buffet rule has nothing to do with deficit reduction or paying down the debt.

Introducing a minimum 30 percent income tax on millionaires “was never our plan to bring the deficit down and get the debt under control,” Jason Furman, the principal deputy director of the White House National Economic Council, told reporters on a conference call Monday afternoon. “This is not the president’s entire tax plan. We’re not trying to say this solves all our economic problems, all our budget problems.”

Making the argument for the rule based on billionaire investor Warren Buffett’s argument that it’s wrong for him to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary, President Barack Obama said in the State of the Union address in January that paying the “fair share of taxes” was necessary for a “sense of shared responsibility. That’s how we’ll reduce our deficit.”

If the President is going to keep trotting out the ridiculous "Buffet rule" chimera, we're going to keep knocking it down... with joy in our heart and a smile upon our face.


Buffet only pays himself a salary of $100,000 which is far, far less than what he pays his secretary, so naturally, not only is Buffet paying less in taxes than his secretary he is also paying less of a percentage of his salary in taxes than his secretary.

Buffet receives most of his income from capital gains which is taxed at 15 percent which is far lower than the highest income tax rate. So, Buffet could simply grant himself, say, a salary of $1 million, thus paying more in taxes and he and the President could quit making clowns of themselves. But, no, Buffet is a) acting in his best rational self-interest by shielding as much of his income as possible from taxation and is b) allowing himself to be a pinata for the benefit his BFF's re-election campaign.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) slammed the bill late last month, after the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the rule would generate $46.7 billion in revenues over the next decade.

“It was designed for no other reason than politics — there is no economic rationale for it,” Hatch said in a statement. “I hope the president will stop the class warfare and start leading by putting out real proposals to bring down our debt.”

But in the Monday conference call, Furman said that sum wasn’t too shabby.

“We think $47 billion is a meaningful amount of money to most Americans,” he said.

$47 billion sounds like a big number until you realize that is the alleged revenue generated over 10 years and with the way Obama spends money, that represents less than one percent of the $6.4 trillion in projected deficits during that same time period.

So, yeah, better stick with the "fairness"/class warfare angle because the numbers are laughable.

.

Your (California) high-speed choo-choo update

.

We had to cut short a post of a couple of days ago regarding California's high-speed rail system and the absurdity of the "alternate" use of the same for fear of sending our readers into a irreversible state of depression.

Having had a couple of days of rest and recovery, let's tread forward together in a slow and orderly fashion and pick up where we left off at the same linked article from the L.A. Times.


Certainly, Jerry Brown is under pressure from Big Labor, Big Green and Big Construction to begin building this monstrosity but what is the form of the pressure he is receiving from Washington D.C. and their partial funding of the project? In response to changing construction plans so that the high-speed rail system could be built first in urban areas* where it might actually be used instead of the Cental Valley:

At a recent hearing by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in Washington, key California legislators asked if the construction plan could be changed. But Joseph Szabo, the Obama administration's chief of the Federal Railroad Administration, said California has no flexibility to rethink the project.

"The ability to shift dollars is not there," he said.

Kind of like interior design decisions that cannot be changed when you made the decision to let the in-laws help out just a little too much with the down payment on the home. That skin in the game that was so welcome at the time has now become a mill stone.



Tax-dodging billionaire, Warren Buffet has been in the news of late for the windfall he stands to gain from shutting down the Keystone XL pipeline project as oil from the North Dakota fields (now the nation's fourth biggest oil producer and climbing) will have to be shipped southward on old slow freight trains. Burlington-Northern trains. Burlington-Northern trains that happen to be owned by Berkshire-Hathaway, Buffet's firm.




Now, back to California:

Roelof van Ark** , the project's chief executive, insists the bullet-train corridor will not become a white elephant.

He has conceded, however, that re-routing Amtrak would be relatively expensive for the benefit.

The federal government has set aside $108 million to link the high-speed segment to the track used by Amtrak, which it shares with freight hauler Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. High-speed rail officials say that's enough for the job.

But a number of rail experts said that more money will be needed to integrate the two systems, and it's unclear how the financially struggling Amtrak system would pay any difference.

(as if you needed the italics)



We almost feel sorry for Jerry Brown. We thought his pragmatist-centrist I'm just too old to give a damn campaign approach was brilliant and would strike a tone with indies and moderates. But here we are: he has allowed himself to be painted into a corner by a progessive coalition of labor unions, greenies, big city mayors and a corrupt adminstration pursuing a two-pronged attack of their unsustainable green agenda and a crony capitalism that is staggering in both its size and sheer audacity to build the greatest boondoggle known to mankind and which will ultimately define his political legacy.






* Also a dubious plan as San Francisco and L.A. both have light rail systems making high-speed choo-choos in those same areas completely redundant.


** Our German scientists are better than their German scientists. Sorry, it was just too easy.

Noted "Patriotic Millionaire/Billionaire" out pedaling his distortions again

.

Warren Buffett is back in the news again calling for higher taxes on the super-rich like himself.*





From Yahoo News:

Warren Buffett, the legendary investor who changed the debate about U.S. tax reform in 2011 with a call for the rich to pay more, is now calling for minimum tax rates for millionaires.

In a New York Times editorial printed on Monday, Buffett suggested Congress move immediately to implement minimum taxes of 30 percent on incomes of $1 million to $10 million and 35 percent above that.

"A plain and simple rule like that will block the efforts of lobbyists, lawyers and contribution-hungry legislators to keep the ultra rich paying rates well below those incurred by people with income just a tiny fraction of ours," Buffett wrote.

"Only a minimum tax on very high incomes will prevent the stated tax rate from being eviscerated by these warriors for the wealthy," he added.

The new push is in keeping with the one he made in the same newspaper in August 2011, in which he decried the "coddling" of the super-rich. He used himself and his secretary as an example, noting that her tax rate was much higher than his even though her income was just a tiny fraction of what he made.

"Warren Buffett's secretary" became a political meme following that editorial, and the said secretary, Debbie Bosanek, was ultimately a guest of President Barack Obama at this year's State of the Union address.

If this tired chimera of Buffet's secretary paying more in taxes is going to be trotted out again, we're going to shoot it down again because it is misleading and given the context of it being a presidential campaign meme that it was in 2012, shamelessly cynical.

You see, the reason Buffett's secretary pays more in income tax is because she makes more income (salary) than does Buffett. Buffett, nobly, allows himself an income salary of only $100,000 where he grants his secretary a salary far greater than that (we've heard it rumored anywhere from $250,000 to $400,000).

Naturally, then, his secretary is going to be paying more taxes on her salary income. Obviously, where Buffett derives the majority of his income is in capital gains and dividends that are taxed at far lower rates than the highest marginal income tax rates that hit his secretary's salary (15% vs. 33-35%).

So, we don't need higher taxes on the rich. What we need and what Buffett would do voluntarily if he wasn't being so dishonest in making his argument, is billionaires to start paying themselves salaries of, well, billionaires. Start paying themselves salaries commensurate with what they are worth. Instead, these so-called patriotic millionaires and billionaires are merely acting in the rational manner that any of us would in shielding their income from getting gouged by the man in a manner totally in keeping with the law.

That Buffett wraps himself in the flag, however, reveals Buffett to be merely a tool... and a tool of the President in his continuing class warfare.

Besides, the President himself acknowledged raising taxes on the rich would do nothing to close the deficit gap or pay down the debt thus implicitly admitting to his own stoking of resentment of the rich.




* We've blogged about this issue several times before, so if it seems old hat, we apologize. Sometimes, however, it's good to remind ourselves and others of just why it is an idea like Buffet's doesn't pass the sniff test and which also sets off our highly tuned and calibrated B.S. alarm.

Traitor?

Mark Cuban, bazillionaire and owner of the Dallas Mavericks, has got quite a bit of run from a blog post he put up few days ago where he exhorted everone to get rich so they can pay a lot of taxes.

Some excerpts:

Bust your ass and get rich.

Make a boatload of money. Pay your
taxes. Lots of taxes. Hire people. Train people. Pay people. Spend money on rent, equipment, services. Pay more taxes.

When you make a shitload of money. Do something positive with it. If you are smart enough to make it, you will be smart enough to know where to put it to work.
.
.

So be Patriotic. Go out there and get rich. Get so obnoxiously rich that when that tax bill comes , your first thought will be to choke on how big a check you have to write. Your 2nd thought will be “what a great problem to have”, and your 3rd should be a recognition that in paying your taxes you are helping to support millions of Americans that are not as fortunate as you.
.
.

I’m not saying that the government’s use of tax money is the most efficient use of our hard-earned capital. It obviously is not. In a perfect world, there would be a better option. We don’t live in a perfect world. We don’t live in a perfect time. We live in a time where the government plays a big role in an effort to help lead us out this Great Recession. That’s reality.

So I will repeat my point. Get out there and make a boatload of money. Enjoy the shit out your money. Pay your taxes.

It’s the most Patriotic thing you can do.

We like Cuban. We're praying for the day when he will be able to buy the Dodgers from that noxious pair, Frank and Jamie McCourt. And we're glad he appears to realize that private enterprise (such as his own) is far more efficient at taking care of the well-being and livlihood of people than the government (which begs for why it is he wrote this blog post in the first place) but saying paying your taxes is the most patriotic thing you can do? Got it.

After hearing stories of bravery and heroism displayed by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan or remembering 9-11 and sacrifices made by the passengers of Flight 93 and the first responders at the World Trade Center, that has to be one of the most patently ridiculous statements we have heard in quite some time.

Our friend "Sherry" advised us that perhaps Cuban was referring only to the rest of us "civilians". Perhaps... but it's still ridiculous to assert that merely obeying the law is somehow patriotic. Hey there, Patriot, thanks for not jay-walking.

And if paying taxes is the most patriotic thing you can do, then Warren Buffet who grants himself a salary of only $100,000 should be guilty of treason.

Of course, liberals are just eating up what Cuban wrote because it's a narrative that fits quite nicely into the President's call for more taxes on the rich. But Obama’s call to raise taxes on the rich is so shamelessly cynical, it’s pathetic. He knows that he’s not going to come anywhere close to closing the deficit on the backs of the rich. Like Buffet, the rich will alter their behavior and/or use the tax code to legally shelter their assets so they won't have to pay those higher taxes. That is just how things work whether statists want to acknowledge it or not.

At the end of the day, whether the President actually believes taxing the rich will somehow improve our economic outlook and/or reduce the deficit is irrelevant. Like the story of the scorpion and the frog, “class warfare” is just what he does. He can’t help himself.

Sarah sez

One in a series that takes a look at some of the zany and madcap things said by the former Governor of Alaska.



Here's Ms. Palin on wanting to know who's been naughty and who's been nice:

You know, I’ve been looking at these worldwide riots that are developing. They’re all a reflection of deep passion, deep resentment and fear. Now the question is “Where will this go? How can this be sort of concretized?” And one thought that has occurred to me — and let me sort of mention it here casually without having really thought it through systematically — I think it would be increasingly helpful if there was a movement to publish, worldwide, lists of who make, largely through speculation, enormous amounts of money almost instantly, and basically hide the fact from their social context. You know, how many Americans are really fully aware of how many other good people, let’s say like Warren Buffett and others, who really donate a lot of their earnings to charities, to philanthropy? But how many more are there in the hedge funds, in the banks, in a variety of other places, who, on the basis of speculation, literally make millions of dollars that would take a century or two for the average person ever to make? I’d like to see those lists. And they shouldn’t be that difficult to produce.

Woops. Upon further review that wasn't Palin at all, rather Jimmy Carter's old National Security Advisor and currently one of President Obama's foreign policy advisors, Zbigniew Brzezinski, on MSNBC the other day.


Compiling people lists... Is it a hard-left authoritarian thing?

To what end does this achieve except for being a raw display of jack-bootled thuggery? What effectively does Brzezinski want to do with this list and why in god's name is how much people make and how much they give to charity any of his damn business? Perhaps Brzezinski can strike the first blow for transparency by volunteering his own W-2s but as the case with Warren Buffet calling for higher taxes on the rich, moral preening always seems to be a not so much for me sort of thing.

I Got Mine!

You gotta love it when one of the world’s richest men doesn’t want you to leave too much money behind for your children. Article here reports out on Warren Buffet being in support of the estate tax, the repealing of which is something being bandied about in Congress right now.

Proponents of the estate tax reason that wealth passed down to the next generation unearned is an anathema to democracy and contributes to a widening gap between the haves and have nots. Here’s the chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. himself going all poli-sci on us:

"Dynastic wealth, the enemy of a meritocracy, is on the rise. Equality of opportunity has been on the decline. A progressive and meaningful estate tax is needed to curb the movement of a democracy toward plutocracy."

Uhhh… whatever. You can dress-up that pig any which way you want but its still just a pig and all that flowery verbage can’t disguise the fact that this “death tax” is just a good ol’ fashioned government money grab. Again, any pro-active attempt by the government to take it upon itself to redistribute wealth in the name equality, justice, income gap, democracy… whatever, is pure folly.

And it hits even closer to home because this “progressive” program was mainly responsible for the O’Malley family, the model of stability and dignity as sports franchise owners, selling our beloved Dodgers to Rupert Murdoch and the Fox empire back in the 90s and which has not coincidentally resulted in over a decade of mediocrity and irrelevance. So screw you, Warren.

We’ll credit Buffett for being perhaps the most unpretentious multi-billionaire in the greater Omaha, Nebraska area but it represents the height of gall for someone who can play “what’s a few hundred million dollars between friends?” opining on the financial legacy we wish to leave our children.

I Got Mine! Pt. II

Warren Buffet is a big fan of the “estate tax” (aka the “death tax”) reasoning that dynastic wealth is not healthy for a democracy. We had some thoughts on Buffett and the death tax, previously. But is he being hypocritical for the manner of his donations to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?

All of this leaves me perplexed by the way Buffett is contributing the bulk of his assets to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Buffett has received excellent legal advice to guarantee that his contributions will not generate federal tax. This provokes the question: Why?
Buffett could give his fortune to the Gates Foundation in a manner which generates federal tax. This would leave less for the foundation but more for the federal fisc. Indeed, Bill Gates, like Warren Buffett, advocates retaining the federal estate tax. He too could leave his assets to his foundation in a fashion which would share part of those assets with Uncle Sam

On the surface, we’re inclined to give Buffett a pass on this as his reasoning for the death tax was based upon the federal government merely being that instrument which would prohibit the continuance of this supposed dynastic wealth. Buffett’s logic did not seem to account for the death tax serving as a way to line the government’s pocket.

However, given that charities these days often become tax shelters in themselves and which profer their largesse in the form of salaries to its executives (family members?) and board members as well as other goodies via “administrative fees”, any sort of black and white conclusion becomes difficult to attain.

We do however, strongly resent now more than ever, Buffett’s support of the death tax. The fact that the government can take half of what a man who has worked hard for (and which has already been taxed on the front end) and invested wisely in order to leave behind as a down payment on a house for his children or as tuition help for his grandchildren strikes us as the actions of an out-of-control government that needs to be taken out at the knees.

So, again.... Screw you, Buffett!

The rich shall lead the way

Warren Buffet, among others, is uncomfortable in his current tax bracket.

With the US Congress hurtling toward a deadline on expiring tax cuts, a growing number of wealthy people are calling for higher taxes on the rich to help restore America's fiscal health.

One effort gathered over 45 millionaires who signed an open petition calling for the end of the tax cuts adopted since 2001 on those with annual incomes exceeding one million dollars.

Tax breaks for the wealthy should expire "for the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens," the letter said. It was signed by Ben & Jerry's ice cream founder Ben Cohen, hedge fund manager Michael Steinhardt and others.

Guy Saperstein, a retired California trial lawyer who organized the effort, said he was "frustrated" that President Barack Obama appeared to be wavering on his pledge to end tax cuts for the wealthy.

"I think the country's in trouble," Saperstein told AFP. "In hard times, the top strata who have done fabulously well need to sacrifice a bit, and it's not much of a sacrifice... We have among the lowest tax rates of any industrialized democracy."

Saperstein said an estimated 1,500 people have signed the letter although some of them did not want to be publicly identified on the group's website.

Philippe Villers, a French-born US businessman who founded Computervision in the 1960s and now heads Grain Pro, says he signed the letter even though it would mean higher taxes for himself.

While we applaud the noble intention of these fine people, we can't help but think it's all just a bunch of hypocritical posturing.

Why wait for a change in the tax code? There is nothing stopping these people from voluntarily giving to the Treasury Department to the tune of their hearts' content.

What's that? They think that everybody making above $250,000 should be paying more in taxes, not just them? Well, that's mighty big of them - requesting the government to take more of their fellow citizens' hard-earned cash.

Since they are so big on nobleness, we believe that they are now morally obligated to lead the way and start giving more to the U.S. government, starting tomorrow, to be a beacon of voluntary giving for the rest of the ingrate fat cats out there.

And speaking of sacrifice, short of a voluntary giving program, why not just sacrifice the job of those tax lawyers and accountants they pay precisely to keep them from paying a minimum on taxes. That would be a great start.

What say ye, Warren?

Quickies

.

A round-up of news items, articles, columns and blog posts that caught our eye this past week.







A nice graphical representation of what the President has put on the table to avoid the fiscal cliff.

It doesn't appear that someone is dealing in good faith.


Related: Why have conservatives ceded to the left the term "revenue" to mean exclusively "raise taxes"? What about "pro-growth policies" as a means to generate revenue?



So, what should the Republican response be to the President's proposal? Guy Benson thinks the Republicans should embrace the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan.

Simpson-Bowles, for all its faults, was conducted in an open and transparent manner and brought disparate political players into a room to forge a serious compromise. It overhauls and streamlines our byzantine tax code, takes some important first steps on entitlements, and reduces and caps federal spending. On substance, I'd wager that it would be considerably better than anything Obama and Boehner might produce after weeks of behind-closed-doors acrimony with the proverbial gun to their heads. Politically, it paints Democrats into a tough corner. Republicans could make a grand show of reluctantly supporting Simpson-Bowles for the betterment of the country. Ideally, the press conference would be led by Paul Ryan, who might explain why he voted against the plan as a commissioner, but is now willing to set aside some of his strong ideological preferences to move the nation forward.

Remember, Simpson-Bowles was the President’s own idea and which had bipartisan support. Thus far, the President has not embraced a single part of the plan. We think it would be a brilliant stroke by the Republicans to put the Democrats back on their heels and have they and the President playing defense.

As Benson stated, Simpson-Bowles has its flaws, but we see it as a giving the Republicans a leg up both tactically and strategically because as it stands now, the Republicans, fair or not, are going to take the hit, P.R.-wise, unless they get the President to take a stand on a commission that he specifically requested and whose recommendations he has since rejected.






Salary.com on the 8 college degrees with the worst return on investments.

Yep, all the usual suspects: sociology, fine arts and nutrition are in the mix.




And Salary.com on the 8 college degrees with the best return on investment.








Atari's "Pong" turned 40 years old this past week.

Here's Buzzfeed's short history of the first video arcade game many of us played.









Warren Buffet has been out again pushing his soak-the-rich tax plan. As you are about to read, raising taxes on the rich isn't so much about improving the economy as it is about improving our... feelings.


From the TODAY Show:

MATT LAUER, TODAY: So bottom line, would raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans have a chilling effect on hiring in this country?

WARREN BUFFETT: No, and I think would have a great effect in terms of the morale of the middle class, who have seen themselves paying high payroll taxes, income taxes. And then they watch guys like me end up paying a rate that's below that, you know, paid by the people in my office.

This is an admission of naked class warfare aggression that, never mind the dismal state of the economy, we'll somehow feel better knowing that the rich are paying more in taxes than they did previously.

It's hard to see someone as independently successful as Buffett become such a hack and such a dishonest one at that. Again, if Buffett paid himself a salary above the $100,000/year he so nobly limits himself, he would land himself in a tax bracket that would make us all feel a whole lot better.








Remember, gang, these are the people that will be in charge of your compliance with ObamaCare:

South Carolina's governor faulted an outdated IRS standard as a contributing factor to a massive data breach that exposed Social Security numbers of 3.8 million taxpayers plus credit card and bank account data. Gov. Nikki Haley's remarks on Tuesday came after a report into the breach revealed that 74.7 GB was stolen from computers belonging to South Carolina's Department of Revenue after an employee fell victim to a phishing email. People who filed tax returns electronically from 1998 on were affected, although most of the data appears to be after 2002, Haley said during a news conference.

It's not just small businesses and restaurants that are doing it but now it appears that colleges are getting in on the act.

From College Insurrection:

Youngstown State University is the second institution to be public about cutting adjuncts’ hours to avoid Affordable Care Act-related costs.

The Ohio university announced its plans in a campuswide memo Thursday, hours after an internal department memo from an English professor warning colleagues about the cuts was leaked to the media.

“A provision under the [Affordable Care Act] requires employers to share in the responsibility of providing health insurance to full-time employees,” the campus memo reads. “Effective this academic year, part-time faculty will not be allowed to teach more than 24 hours over fall, spring and summer.”

Youngstown’s announcement comes just weeks after Community College of Allegheny County in Pennsylvania announced it was preemptively cutting hundreds of adjuncts’ hours to avoid an estimated $6 million in employee health care costs when the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate begins in January 2014.

Curious if the deranged left will now consider boycotting institutes of higher education.






America's trusted highway life line, AAA, not down with ethanol:

The AAA says the Environmental Protection Agency and gasoline retailers should halt the sale of E15, a new ethanol blend that could damage millions of vehicles and void car warranties.

AAA, which issued its warning Friday, says just 12 million of more than 240 million cars, trucks and SUVs now in use have manufacturers' approval for E15. Flex-fuel vehicles, 2012 and newer General Motors vehicles, 2013 Fords and 2001 and later model Porsches are the exceptions, according to AAA, the nation's largest motorist group, with 53.5 million members.

"It is clear that millions of Americans are unfamiliar with E15, which means there is a strong possibility that many may improperly fill up using this gasoline and damage their vehicle," AAA President and CEO Robert Darbelnet tells USA TODAY. "Bringing E15 to the market without adequate safeguards does not responsibly meet the needs of consumers."

BMW, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota and VW have said their warranties will not cover fuel-related claims caused by E15. Ford, Honda, Kia, Mercedes-Benz and Volvo have said E15 use will void warranties, says Darbelnet, citing potential corrosive damage to fuel lines, gaskets and other engine components

.


It's bad for your car, it drives up food prices and its production has a larger carbon footprint than does the extraction, refining and shipment of crude oil. It's the worst alternative energy idea ever created yet it continues because it is a subsidized cash crop in a state that is first up during primary season every 4 years.




OK, gang. That's it for today. We'll catch up with you all tomorrow.

Awww... Hollywood still (hearts) Obama

.
After much angst and hand-wringing with respect to Hollywood's supposed flagging support for the President, we can call off the suicide watch - Hollywood's got Barack's back!

Despite complaints about his failure to support Hollywood's position on online piracy, President Obama does not appear to have lost his fundraising base in the entertainment community.

As Obama arrives in Los Angeles on Wednesday, local campaign fundraisers said there has been no drop-off in Hollywood donations to his reelection bid since the D.C. demise of long-sought anti-piracy legislation. Hollywood's chief lobbyist Chris Dodd suggested last month that Obama and his fellow Democrats could pay a price for not representing the industry's interests in Washington.

But there was no evidence of that in the run-up to Wednesday's fundraising events. A dinner and a reception at the Holmby Hills home of "The Bold and the Beautiful" producer Bradley Bell and his wife, Colleen, co-hosted by actor Will Ferrell and his wife, Viveca, sold out faster than any fundraiser in the last several years, according to Ken Solomon, co-chairman of Obama's Southern California fundraising committee.

You can read more about the 1 percenters support of the President at the link but there were a couple of quotes that stood out to us.

First this:

The robust turnout underscores the ties that bind many in the entertainment industry to the Democratic president on topics such as abortion rights and the environment. Because much of Hollywood political giving is ideological, campaign donations are not usually tied to short-term legislative items, fundraisers said.

"Hollywood money for the most part is actually quite pure," said veteran Los Angeles Democratic fundraiser John Emerson, the other co-chairman of Obama's Southern California finance team. "It's given by people who really believe in the issues. They're not writing the checks because they're after some regulatory change."

Then this:

Producer and former MCA Inc. President Sidney Sheinberg said Newt Gingrich once asked him why Democrats got so much Hollywood support and the Republicans did not: "I told him the reason is that most people in Hollywood vote their conscience, not their pocket book."

Allow us to translate: Hollywood 1-percenters can afford to be liberal, the rest of us can't.


Things like CARB, high-speed choo-choos and the budgetary 3 card monty as currently practiced in Sacramento are probably big hits with these folks as they won't feel the consequences of their job-killing results. There is, quite simply, no skin in the game for these people.

It's the same sort of mentality shared by Warren Buffet and his hyprocritical "Patriotic Millionaires" clowns who allegedly want their income taxes raised (for what exact purpose, we are not quite sure). What's a few more dollars out of their paycheck? It's of no real consequence other than some perverse self-serving smug satisfaction that they believe they are actually doing something to boost the economy or cure the scourge of income inequality.

Indeed, the rich aren't at all like the rest of us. They can afford the negative impact of horrible legislation and executive fiat while everyone else suffers.

.

Wondering how Warren Buffet feels about all this.

Tired of seemingly never-ending and wildly expensive election cycles? So are we – let’s just appoint our relatives.
Sincerely,
(D)The Senate

The Kennedy Clan, apparently not content with merely one legacy seat, will be seeking another as Caroline Kennedy has thrown her hat into the ring for consideration for Hillary Clinton’s vacated New York Senate seat. We were going to use this time to marvel at her burnished credentials as curator of her mother’s poetry writings and as award presenter but, you know, given the current state of our two federal legislative bodies and their actual accomplishments, credentials are obviously no indicator of future performance. So…. Welcome to the club, Caroline!

Caroline (on left) with person rumored to be the world's first face transplant recipient. (H/T: Jammie Wearing Fool)

Sarah sez

.


One in series that takes a look at some of the wild, zany and madcap things said by the former governor of Alaska.



Proving no shortage of ridiculous things in which to say, Palin was commenting on the sluggish economy and the current debate in Washington regarding taxing the rich and what the rich mean to job creation.

"Millionaire job creators are like unicorns,” said Palin. “They are impossible to find and don’t exist.”

“Republicans say the richest of the rich in our country … shouldn’t contribute more to put our economy back on track,” said Palin. “They call our plan time after time a ‘tax on job creators,’ and I say so-called job creators because … every shred of evidence contradicts this red herring."

Of course, that wasn't Palin rather the Senate majority leader, poor ol' Harry Reid on the floor of the Senate yesterday.

Have a listen:




Citing NPR to bolster your argument probably isn't the sturdiest bit of backing Reid could have chosen.


And since you seem to be flailing a little, Senator, allow us to help locate one of these apocryphal job creators. Here's American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Jack Gerard (hey, betcha he's probably a millionaire) on jobs and revenue generation:

"Some people still don't get it. And some have resorted to various antics to distort the facts about our industry's ability to create jobs, to provide an economic stimulus to our economy, and increase revenues to the federal government. We're here today to clear up any confusion that was raised recently in a letter to API by Congressman Edward Markey. ... His letter illustrates the typical misunderstandings about important industry facts and how that misunderstanding can lead to public policies that hinder, rather than help, job creation and economic growth."

(italics, ours)

We're glad Gerard made that point because every time we hear about increasing revenues with respect to the budget, it is always... always couched in terms of raising taxes when no one, even the Republicans get caught in this trap, talk about pro-growth economic policies that will bring additional revenue into the cophers of the federal government. Please note for yourself this phenomena and let us know if we're wrong.




More Gerard:

Congressman Markey and other critics now appear to be calling into question the very use of multipliers to project job impacts. Not only is this concept accepted by almost all mainstream economists, but Dr. Wassily Leontief won a Nobel Prize for developing the input/output methodology that includes this effect. In fact, most recent estimates of jobs impacts, including estimates of the administration's recent jobs proposal, include direct, indirect and induced effects in their calculations. The critical point is that indirect and induced jobs created by the oil and natural gas sector are real jobs that will employ real Americans."

(italics, again, ours)

Multipliers... hmmmmm... where have we heard that before?


That's right. The reason Reid and fellow statists like House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney don't believe the rich create jobs or believe in a private sector multiplier effect is because they believe that food stamps and unemployment benefits are the real job creators in this economy. And the way this particular economy is sputtering along, who could blame them? It's not exactly like it's been a conducive environment for the evil rich to invest in hiring so, in a sense, one would never know the difference.




It doesn't take an economics degree to realize just how hopelessly delusional it is to champion unemployment benefits over that of the wealth-generators in this country with respect to getting this economy up and roaring again.


Yep, we're in the very best of hands.





P.S. We also think that Obama's BFF Warren Buffet would be pleased to know that Harry Reid simply doesn't think he exists.

Quickies

.


A round-up of news items, columns, articles and blog posts that caught our eye this past week:

.



Here's some of that new civility we've been hearing so much about:

Calypso Louie Farrakhan brining it earlier this week at LeMoyne-Owens College in Memphis, TN.



Wonder to whom Louie was referring in that "started off good but got corrupted..." clause at the end of the clip.






Dude...









How do you know when a scandal is potentially hugely damaging to a sitting (Democrat) President? The legacy media virtually ignores it. While everyone is rightly up in arms over the shameless wastefulness of the GSA/Las Vegas dust-up and the sleazy unprofessionalism of the Secret Service hooker-gate down in Columbia, we don't recall anyone dying in those scandals in which there were no direct ties to the administration. We were not aware that lavish conferences in Vegas nor hiring prostitutes in Columbia were official administration policies as was the case in Fast and Furious, the widely successful gun-running scheme that put arms into the hands of drug cartels and which cost the lives of 2 U.S. officials as well as hundreds if not thousands of Mexicans.

One must imagine, then, the administration is actually breathing a sigh of relief seeing GSA and hooker-gate splashed across the front pages of the dead tree media. As if you haven't figured it out by now, this administration has been reduced to governing by distraction. The President admits that the Buffett Rule (which wouldn't even apply to Warren Buffet) to which he is hitching his campaign wagon, won't do a damn thing to lower the debt or deficit (distraction).
He admits his $52 million scheme to crack down on oil speculators won't actually lower the price of gas at the pump and in fact may actually backfire and raise the price of gas as this plan may serve to drive down the number of speculators in the market causing a monopoly effect (counter-effective distraction). And now these two latest non-administration-related distractions. Keep 'em coming says the administration and its water carriers.

And while governance by distraction is the current M.O., B-Daddy reminds us that it is merely a result of a mindset of resentment in the DNA of the Obama administration:

Scratch the surface of leftist complaint and you always seem to find resentment, whether about the general unfairness of society or the indifference to the harm done to the powerless. While unfairness and harm exist, the almost exclusive focus by the left on these perspectives stems from a psychology of resentment and learned powerlessness. Because most Americans are self-reliant and optimistic, the left does not usually win elections. 2008 was an anomaly, because the blatant unfairness of the bailouts and Republican duplicity made it logical for Americans to turn to the Democrats.

Ultimately, I think that Obama has chosen the politics of resentment as the key to electoral success. I may be wrong, but since he has launched attacks on Pau l Ryan and on the rich with the Buffett rule, his poll numbers already seem to be slipping. I believe that it is important to defeat him, but more important to educate Americans on the virtues of our positions.

Please do get to the link as B-Daddy does an excellent job on bridging the gap between the tea party/freedom coalition and liberals on several key policy issues


.



So, what has Shane Atwell been up to? Reading. Reading and sharing:

I read Oleg Atbashian's Shakedown Socialism almost two years ago now. I remember it being an enjoyable short read on the evils of communism. I don't remember many details. But one quotation comes back to mind over and over, everytime I hear about the Left's supposed support for due process, or freedom of the press, or closing Guantanimo, or transparency in government (from the bottom of page 8):

In the words of prominent Party theoretician Nikolai Bukharin, "We asked for freedom of the press, thought, and civil liberties in the past because we were in the opposition and needed these liberties to conquer. Now that we have conquered, there is no longer any need for such civil liberties."

Shane's right, of course. There does indeed seem to be a certain convenience if not outright hypocrisy when it comes to liberalism circa 2010-2012 vs. liberalism circa 2005 with respect to trashing the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution Act when it came to our involvement in Libya and the indefinite detainment and wacking of U.S. citizens both here and abroad without traditionally recognized due process. Far less egregious transgressions had the left in full-blown garment-rending mode back when dissent was patriotic and it wasn't their guy calling the shots.






As seen on Facebook:

Fifteen years on and dude scores another internet/urban myth meme. Not too shabby.






drozz is naming names and compiling lists. Drop by and leave suggestions on how best to chronicle those who voted for ObamaCare as we ramp up to the elections in November. It's not just the Oval Office that needs turnover.


.




Quick... before the news cycle expires on this: Sir Charles has a round-up of all media/blogosphere-related Obama ate dog goodies.




.




Charles Krauthammer on the fall of NASA:

Is there a better symbol of willed American decline? The pity is not Discovery's retirement — beautiful as it was, the shuttle proved too expensive and risky to operate — but that it died without a successor. The planned follow-on — the Constellation rocket-capsule program to take humans back into orbit and from there to the moon — was suddenly canceled in 2010. And with that, control of manned spaceflight was gratuitously ceded to Russia and China.

We're torn on this one. Litterally running a shuttle service is pretty mundane stuff, but space exploration is inherently cool and was, at one time, the exclusive domain of this country, exemplifying our nation's exceptionalism. If there was one thing that could bring this country together, it was NASA and it's manned space flights. Now, we're broke... beyond broke and sadder perhaps than even that is the fact that effectively shutting down NASA is a result of the deficits in resolve, imagination and leadership of our political class.






So does this mean we are finally going to get to see Zeppelin live?


Dead for 16 years, Tupac... or rather a hologram of Tupac makes an appearance with Snoop Dogg and Dr. Dre last weekend at the Coachella Music Festival (extreme language warning):









Chapman University demographer, Joel Kotkin on the California exodus:

California used to be more like Texas—a jobs magnet. What happened? For one, says the demographer, Californians are now voting more based on social issues and less on fiscal ones than they did when Ronald Reagan was governor 40 years ago. Environmentalists are also more powerful than they used to be. And Mr. Brown facilitated the public-union takeover of the statehouse by allowing state workers to collectively bargain during his first stint as governor in 1977.

Mr. Kotkin also notes that demographic changes are playing a role. As progressive policies drive out moderate and conservative members of the middle class, California's politics become even more left-wing. It's a classic case of natural selection, and increasingly the only ones fit to survive in California are the very rich and those who rely on government spending. In a nutshell, "the state is run for the very rich, the very poor, and the public employees."

There is an old, ribald saying regarding messing up a really, really good dream that would certainly apply here. Seriously, it would appear to take incompetence and not only incompetence but the Herculean effort of, day after day and year after year of actively applying that incompetence in order to screw up such a good thing as California. By damn, it looks like 35-40 years after it started, the job is nearly complete.


OK, gang. That's it for today. We will see you all tomorrow.

Your obligatory "most ethical Congress in history" update

Energy panel Republicans are levying accusations of witness intimidation against Democratic Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), one of the key authors of the contentious House climate change bill.

Republicans have seized on a letter – a copy of which was obtained by The Hill – that Markey penned to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Jon Wellinghoff asking FERC to investigate the actions of a major energy company on the same day that the company’s CEO was set to testify before the energy panel on the dangers of a carbon cap and trade system.
According to the June 9 letter, Markey requested that Wellinghoff probe how thoroughly MidAmerican Energy Holdings – a $41 billion company in which Warren Buffet is a major investor – followed up on promises to invest as much as $15 billion in electric transmission expansion in the wake of the repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act in 2005.

In fact, Markey singled out MidAmerican Energy to also ask FERC to look into his concerns “that the repeal of PUHCA has also freed large multi-state public utility companies to diversify into other potentially risky business, to the potential detriment of utility investors and consumers.”

Remember, folks – the same people who are employing these strong-arm tactics and who will be leveraging cap and trade for their own political benefit and who will be builiding cars no one will want to buy, will soon be in charge of your health care. Thanks, G.O.P.

Social Engineering via the tax code

U.S. Rep. Cynthia Lummis says some of her Wyoming constituents are so worried about the reinstatement of federal estate taxes that they plan to discontinue dialysis and other life-extending medical treatments so they can die before Dec. 31.

Lummis, a Republican who holds her state's lone seat in the House, declined to name any of the people who have made the comments.

But she said many ranchers and farmers in the state would rather pass along their businesses -- "their life's work" -- to their children and grandchildren than see the federal government take a large chunk.

"If you have spent your whole life building a ranch, and you wanted to pass your estate on to your children, and you were 88 years old and on dialysis, and the only thing that was keeping you alive was that dialysis, you might make that same decision," Lummis told reporters.

Alternate headline: "Save the Ranch - Vote Republican"

The perverse death tax will go from 0 to 55% starting Jan. 1 of next year and depending upon the full extent of what happens tomorrow, the President may be faced with a rather unenviable task of vetoing a bill eliminating the death tax.

Actually, it would be very smart politically to sign it and tone-deaf to veto it. No one, save Congressional libs and the ultra-rich like Warren Buffet, likes it.

And if you think that is just a bunch of noise coming out of Wyoming, we've had the opportunity to meet some of these people on our snow-mobile trips over the years. They are not trifling people given to cheap rhetoric. We'd take them at their word.

Some more (of other people's) thoughts on the riots in England

But first, we can't remember where we heard it or read it but it went a little something like this: "Everything in England is regulated except the crime."



And here's Secular Apostate on making nothing out of something (and in this case, quite a bit of something):

The anthem of these young people who make nothing out of something was penned by the unlamentably late Amy Winehouse:

I didn’t get a lot in class
But I know it don’t come in a shot glass
They tried to make me go to rehab
But I said ‘no, no, no’

And I can’t blame her for refusing re-habilitation.

Because she was deliberately de-habilitated, and she knew it. She was dehabilitated by a toxic politico-cultural brew of entitlement thinking, moral relativity, and reward for indolence and excess. By my lights, given her brazen drug abuse and public drunkenness, she should have been cooling her buns in jail. If she had been, she would be alive today. Instead, we have an outstanding natural talent, destroyed, rotting in the grave.

Yes, you can make nothing out of something.

For those of you in Placentia, California wondering just who the heck is Amy Winehouse, check it out:


Sober for a month now...





Related:

More, I do not want to encourage entitlements; I do not think a Republic can survive when those who pay little or no tax determine the size of government and the entitlements to the citizens. I do not want to encourage a society in which all men are paid for existing, and no man must pay for his sins – or for his dinner, for that matter.

And when folks like Warren Buffet whine that the rich aren't paying their fair share, to what end is his whining? What assurances are built into place that increasing government revenue would actually go towards reducing the federal defecit? There isn't so please quit whining.