Our nation's debt is literally indenturing our children to our international debt holders, but most Americans don't care because they are more concerned about the latest saga involving Snooki on Jersey Shore rather than what really matters, our country’s future.
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

RAHN: Fixing the Federal Reserve - Washington Times

There is a growing consensus that the Federal Reserve is broken - because it is. The Fed was established to provide price stability and prevent periodic banking crises. It has accomplished neither.

The wholesale price level in the United States was at almost the same level when the Fed was established in 1913 as it was in 1793, 120 years earlier. Now it takes about 22 dollars to equal the 1913 dollar. There have been far more bank failures post-Fed than pre-Fed, and we seem to be in an almost permanent state of banking crises with “too big to fail.”

The Fed’s near-zero interest policy is a growing disaster. With inflation near 4 percent and interest on various types of savings accounts less than 1 percent, those who have been prudent and saved are being punished - forced to accept what is, in effect, a negative rate of interest. Credit is no longer being allocated by the market but to classesof borrowers as determined by politicians. Homeowners are being given money at a near-zero rate (the interest rate they are being charged is about equal to inflation) and the interest expense is tax-deductible. Many small-business people are not able to get loans because they are “risky,” and the banks can borrow from the Fed at lower rates than they can get on government bonds, so there is no incentive for them to take on the risk. Unless the banks become more willing to lend to businesses that create real jobs and innovations, the economy will continue to stagnate.
 
RAHN: Fixing the Federal Reserve - Washington Times

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Cain says Democrats have taken 'race card to new low'

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Cutting Government Spending: An Interview with Puerto Rico Governor Luis...

Just how out of touch is our government with reality.....

You may have heard that the Republicans were threatening to shutdown the government unless they got concessions from their Democratic colleagues. So how much did those fiscal conservatives we elected get in concessions why $4 Billion in budget cuts. Sounds like a large number until you realize how large the budget is. Currently the budget is projected to be $3.82 trillion. To put these numbers in perspective if a family of four had an income of $44,000 and cut its family budget by the same percentage as our elected officials the family would have to skip ordering pizza on Friday night ($44) for one week. Hardly a sacrifice.

So they  negotiated a two-week compromise on spending … agreeing to a paltry $4 billion worth of budget cuts as part of a deal to keep the federal government operating through March 18.

Seriously, $4 billion out of a $3.82 trillion budget is a joke. Then again, so is the $61 million that Republicans are hoping to cut out of a proposed seven month spending plan. That is status quo tinkering around the edges – not real spending reform.

So … why are we even here? Didn’t lawmakers pass a budget last year?
Actually, no …

For the first time since 1974 the U.S. Congress failed to pass a budget in 2010, largely because former U.S. Budget Chairman John Spratt was too busy shoving “Obamacare” through his committee.

As a result, on September 30, 2010 – the last day of the federal fiscal year – lawmakers passed a continuing resolution to fund the government through December. A second continuing resolution passed that month which has been funding government ever since.

That’s the resolution that expires on March 4.
 US House Passes 2-Week Budget

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Jonathan Karl Tracks Holiday Pork in Washington


I'm sure ABC had an agenda in trying to make the Republicans look bad I only wished that the Republicans didn't make so easy for them. These two leaders of the Republican party are great examples of what is wrong with the GOP. They will vote against the spending knowing full well that the Democrats have enough votes to get it passed and because they know it will get passed they made sure that their earmarks were added to the bill. Trust me while they are stating for the camers today that earmarks are evil when they are back in their home states I guarantee that they will make the rounds to all the people getting those evil earmarks and will be delivering speeches about how they got their states "fair share".

Senators you are a cancer in the GOP and the best way to get rid of cancer is to cut it out.

Senator Cornyn is up for election in 2014 and Senator Thune is thinking about making a run at the GOP nomination in 2012. Sorry guys but you have been in Washington DC too long if you think we are so stupid that we don't understand that actions, not putting earmarks in a spending bill, are more important than making speeches about how you are opposed to earmarks. Its time to get some more fiscal conservatives in the GOP and I think we just found two more Senators that need to be replaced.

FoxNews - Taxpayer Calculator: $8Billion in Earmarks

There is still time to stop this bill from being passed so get on the phones to your Senators now!!

Taxpayer Calculator: $8Billion in Earmarks

While most Americans digest the latest Congressional spending bill, Washington insiders are already counting noses.

A showdown is coming to D.C. and the pressure is on Democrats to hold together despite mounting criticism of wasteful spending, while Republicans look to grab some crossover votes. The fate of the government, literally hangs in the balance. Without Congressional action on a budget, the federal government shuts down for lack of money.

The latest showdown comes largely as a result of earmarks. Both sides know they have to pay roughly a trillion dollars to just to keep the government running, but it's those pet projects seen as wasteful, irresponsible and unnecessary that have voters upset and many in Congress afraid.

All but eight Senate Republicans had agreed to a two year ban on earmarks. A majority Democrats did not, voting down a proposed ban just two weeks ago.

The $1.1 trillion Senate omnibus bill contains 6,714 earmarks worth $8.3 billion.

Sources say the deal was hammered out principally by Sen. Dan Inouye, Democrat of Hawaii and Thad Cochran, Republican of Mississippi.

Not only are they the ranking members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, they are the also the reigning kings of pork. In 2010, Cochran won 240 earmarks worth $490 million, while Inouye sponsored or co-sponsored 151 programs worth $387 million.

This year's omnibus is no different, with each senator helping sponsor dozens of earmarks exceeding $100 million, including:

Inouye Earmarks
$21 million Hawaiian Health Care
$6 million wildlife refuge
$3 million Hawaii National Guard drug program
$5.5 million Joint Venture Education Center

Cochran Earmarks
$21 million Gulf Coast Test Center
$5 million Natural Products Center
$4 million Large Structure Building Center
$3.4 million Anti Drug Center

While lawmakers argue about the legitimacy of earmarks, in this case there is no doubt this bill lacks debate and careful consideration. All 6,000 earmarks got air dropped without a floor debate and members--let alone the public--barely had the chance to decide if any of these earmarks are a wise use of taxpayer money.

FoxNews- DeMint's 'New Low' in 'Political Stunts'

DeMint's 'New Low' in 'Political Stunts'
S.C. senator takes on omninbus spending bill, tax cuts and responds to White House anger over his threat to force line-by-line reading of START treaty

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Via TheBlaze.com - Pork Survives: Senate Rejects Earmarks Ban

Looks like we just got a list of Republicans that we need to defeat in the primaries, unfortunately only two are up for re-election in the next two years and the American people have short term memories.
WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — The Senate has rejected a GOP bid to ban the practice of larding spending bills with earmarks — those pet projects that lawmakers love to send home to their states.

Democrats and a handful of Republicans combined to defeat the effort, which would have effectively forbidden the Senate from considering legislation containing earmarks like road and bridge projects, community development funding, grants to local police departments and special-interest tax breaks.

Earlier this month, Republicans bowed to tea party activists and passed a party resolution declaring GOP senators would give up earmarks. House Republicans have also given up the practice, but most Democrats say the earmarks are a legitimate way to direct taxpayer money to their constituents.

The legislation would have established an earmark moratorium for fiscal years 2012 and 2013, and also would have covered the fiscal year that began on Oct. 1, The Hill reports.

“I believe I have an important responsibility to the state of Illinois and the people I represent to direct federal dollars into projects critically important for our state and our future,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill) said.

The eight GOP senators who voted to preserve earmark spending include: Thad Cochran (Miss.) (2014), Susan Collins (Maine) (2014), James Inhofe (Okla.) (2012), Dick Lugar (Ind.) (2012), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) (2016), Richard Shelby (Ala.) (2016), retiring Sen. George Voinovich (Ohio) and defeated Sen. Bob Bennett (Utah) also voted against it.

Six Democrats voted for the earmark moratorium, including: Sens. Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Colorado Sens. Michael Bennet and Mark Udall, as well as retiring Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.) and defeated Sen. Russ Feingold (Wis.).

I understand that earmarks make up a small percentage of the budget but if these Senators won't stop spending our tax dollars on turtle tunnels and bridges to nowhere can we really expect them to be responsible with the big tickets items like defense and social security. I think not.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

In a shocking report members of Congress get richer during the worst recession (depression) since the Great Depression

This story might be surprising if Congress was actually subject to insider trading rules, like ordinary Americans, but since they are not subject to these laws, the only thing that surprised me was that they only got a 16% rate of return rather than 25%.

The study I really want to see is the one, which shows all of Representatives and Senators that went to Washington D.C. poor and somehow became millionaires; all while earning $175k and maintaining two households.

Take for example Charlie Rangel, prior to being elected to Congress in 1971, he was a Sgt. in the U.S. Army, a private lawyer and a U.S. Attorney, all commendable professions but certainly not ones where people become millionaires. Yet almost 40 years later he is so well off that he forgets to report $500k in taxable income. Opps.

Charlie isn't the only one gaming the system, he's just the latest to get caught.

Members of US Congress Get Richer Despite Sour Economy


Despite a long and deep recession, the collective personal wealth of congressional members increased by more than 16 percent between 2008 and 2009, according to a study released Wednesday by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The study also indicates that a significant number of members owned shares of major players in the health-care and financial-services sectors, which were the subject of major reform legislation during the period.

The findings—based on federal financial disclosure data released earlier this year—paint a wealthy bunch in Congress, with more than half of all members—261—were millionaires.

About one in five of those had average calculated wealth in 2009 of at least $10 million. Eight of the 261 were in the $100 million-plus range.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) ranked No. 1 in personal wealth—$303.5 million.
In contrast, U.S. median household income dropped 3 percent to $50,221 between 2008 and 2009, the second straight decline, according to the Census Dept. In terms of millionaires, only about 1 percent of the overall population qualifies.

The CRP study comes amid a growing public outcry about the size of government and rising employee salaries when the economy—and most taxpayers—are struggling like never before, with unemployment stuck at 9.5 percent and wages and benefits flat in many sectors.

“Congressional representatives on balance rank among the wealthiest of wealthy Americans and boast financial portfolios that are all but unattainable for most of their constituents," said Sheila Krumholz, the Center's executive director.

The period covered is December 2008 to December 2009.

The median wealth of a representative was $765,010, up from $645,503 in 2008, while that of a senator was almost $2.38 million, versus $2.27 million the previous year.

That is sizable considering that by law members of each chamber receive an annual salary of $175,000. They do, however, qualify for a number of perks, including paid travel expenses.

Politicos' Portfolios

Stock holdings are among the assets covered in the report, and the investing tastes of Congress appear to be somewhat conventional, with large-cap, Dow 30 companies dominating the widely-held list of members.
General Electric, parent company of CNBC, is No. 1, with 82 current members of Congress listing it. Rounding out the top five are: Bank of America (63), Cisco Systems (61), Proctor & Gamble (61) and Microsoft (54).

In another context, however, Beltway watchers might find it unsettling that some of the most widely-held stocks are those of companies at the center of the financial crisis in 2008-2009.

The most popular investment among congressional members reads as a who’s who list of the most powerful corporate political forces in Washington, D.C. -- companies that each spend millions, if not tens of millions of dollars each year lobbying federal officials," states the CRP report.

In addition to Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup were popular holdings. All of them received funding under the TARP. Morgan Stanley, General Motors and AIG are not on the list.

Another big sector is health care-drugs, which, like financial services, was the subject of major reform legislation in 2009.

Drug industry giants like Pfizer, for instance, ranked seventh on the list, with 49 members disclosing ownership. Rivals Johnson & Johnson and Merck also made the list of 50 companies.

The study indicates that party affiliation is not a key factor in the increase of lawmakers’ personal assets. Twelve Democrats and seven Republicans were among the 20 congressmen with the greatest annual increases. That ratio mirrors the overall party breakdown of the current Congress.

The CRP study is by no means precise science. The group notes: "Members of Congress are only required to report their wealth and liabilities in broad ranges. It’s therefore impossible to precisely determine how much value their assets are worth...."






Tuesday, November 16, 2010

AZ Republic - Arizona pension plan for police, fire adds to cost

Why are state pension plans broke? Answer: Corrupt and stupid politicians that create laws like those in Arizona, which lead to unsustainable payments to state retirees. I thought the only people who got $250K lump sum payments were Wall Street bankers not firefighters and cops.

Arizona pension plan for police, fire adds to cost
Fearing a potential exodus of police officers and firefighters eligible to retire, the Arizona Legislature a decade ago created the Deferred Retirement Option Plan ("DROP") as a way to keep experienced public safety officers on the job.

The deal seemed simple: If officers agreed to work up to five extra years before retiring, the DROP program would pay them a lump sum in addition to their annual pension when they finally retired.
The program remains enticing. Today, participants' lump-sum payments at retirement average $268,938 for all public-safety officers. The average payment for police officers is $247,422, and $314,338 for retiring firefighters.

Officers enrolled in DROP also draw their annual pensions once they step off the job.

The lump-sum payouts, combined with cost-of-living increases that have outpaced inflation and multiple years of investment losses, caused taxpayers' costs for the program to soar.

As a result, the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System is so underfunded that even its top administrator says the overall pension program needs to be changed, perhaps drastically, to stem the expanding public subsidy.

"The plan is upside down," said Jim Hacking, its director. "It's not reasonable or realistic for our constituent groups or anybody to say, 'We will not do anything.' It's not a rational response."

As DROP was rolled out during the past decade, public-safety retirees received cost-of-living adjustments to their primary plan, and average annual pension benefits grew to $44,025 - the highest among all Arizona public pension systems.

The public's tab through employer contributions for the combined pensions, cost-of-living increases and DROP payouts in the past decade has grown from $46.8 million to $316.2 million a year - a spike of nearly 576 percent, or 22 times more the rate of inflation during the same period. Those increasing costs mirror the growth in Arizona's five other public-pension systems. An Arizona Republic investigation has found the pension systems are costing taxpayers at least $1.39 billion a year - more than the current state budgets for higher education, corrections or a health-insurance program for the poor.

Byron Schlomach, an economist with the Goldwater Institute and a critic of the state's pension systems, said the public-safety benefits are overly generous and the burden for taxpayers was unreal.

"It's nice they have figured out a way to rob us," said Schlomach. "This is ridiculous. How can anybody justify this?"

Hacking said there was "no question DROP added some liabilities" to the public-safety pension trust, but he believes the system has been hurt more by investment losses at the beginning and end of the last decade due to stock market conditions, and by guaranteed cost-of-living increases to retirees.

Supporters of DROP say it has helped police and fire departments retain experienced talent while allowing municipalities to better plan when to add staff.

"Police officers were leaving as soon as they were eligible to retire," said Jim Mann, executive director of the 6,500-member Fraternal Order of Police. "There's a real need to keep experienced officers on the job because it costs so much to train new officers."

Tim Hill, president of the Professional Fire Fighters of Arizona, which also has 6,500 members, said the lump-sum payments were misleading. While they sound high, he contends the program saves the pension system money in the long run. He said once public safety officers opt into DROP, they no longer continue to accrue credits for their years of service. By comparison, he said, officers who remain a full 25 years or more and do not take part in DROP have their pensions calculated based on total years of service, giving them larger pensions that, over time, may eclipse DROP's upfront cost.

Neither employee organizations nor the pension system could provide precise estimates of whether DROP has been a net expense or savings for the pension system. However, around the same time the public-safety system instituted DROP, the Arizona State Retirement System, the largest public pension program, rejected the same program because its director said it was too costly.

While the payouts are rich, participation in DROP in recent years has fallen after steadily growing from 2002 to 2006, when a record-high 1,746 members were enrolled. Last year, participation fell to 1,044, or roughly 5 percent of the total active membership in the pension program.

Hacking said enrollment fell because in the past few years there have been fewer employees with the required 20 years of service to enter the program.

How it works

The Public Safety Personnel Retirement System allows its members to enter DROP after 20 years of service. They then must remain with their employer for up to five more years, and during that time neither the employee nor employer contributes to the retirement system.

Upon entering DROP, the employee's pension is calculated based on years of service up to that point and the highest consecutive three years of compensation. The amount the employee would have received in a pension is essentially set aside by the public-safety pension system, and the money is guaranteed to increase at the trust's assumed rate of growth, currently 8.25 percent.

The DROP payments are higher for those who come into the program with a larger salary and more years of service.

By law, the interest is paid even if the assumed rate doesn't materialize. That means there's no risk to the employee, but it's a big problem for taxpayers when the stock market drops, which caused negative returns for the trust in 2001, 2002, 2008 and 2009. When the system loses money, employers using tax dollars have to pay more to make up the losses.

Anthony Webb, an economist at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, said the guaranteed growth rate for DROP participants is unheard-of in the private sector unless money is placed in high-risk investments, but even then, there are no guarantees.

Hacking said the interest rate is set by state law, and he said the pension system is well diversified and not dependent on high-risk investments.

Along with the DROP benefit, participants have other benefits unique to public-safety personnel. Because of the recognized physical stresses of police and firefighting jobs, and the dangers of being killed on the job, public-safety pension systems generally have allowed participants to retire earlier than those in the private sector.

The average age for public safety retirees is 50.8 years, and the pension continues until a person dies. At that point, a spouse receives 80 percent of the pension until that person dies and the pension payments stop.

Benefits for DROP participants skyrocketed in 2007, when some of the first participants left the program and collected payouts after participating for the maximum five years.

That year, DROP benefits totaled $151.9 million, a 566 percent increase from the previous year when $22.8 million was paid. In 2007, DROP accounted for one-third of all pension benefits paid to police and firefighters. The previous year, it accounted for just 8 percent of all benefits.

DROP payments declined to $98 million and $91 million, respectively, in the past two years. But they still accounted for roughly 21 percent of all pension benefits for 2008 and 2009.

'Unsustainable'

A consequence of the large payouts and diminished investment earnings is that the pension trust currently is funded at just 65.8 percent, the lowest among the six public pension systems in Arizona.

That means the money now in the trust would pay for only 65.8 percent of the system's current liabilities if they all came due at the same time.

The goal is to be 100 percent funded; 80 percent is considered healthy by industry standards.

The closer a pension is to being fully funded, the lower the contribution rates for members and their employers.

Arizona law sets trust contributions by police and firefighters at 7.65 percent of their wages. If investment returns are poor and the trust is underfunded, the employee contribution is not raised.

Instead, any shortfall is generally made up by employers through tax dollars, though the trust also is partly funded through taxes on homeowner-insurance policies.

Employers currently contribute an amount equivalent to nearly 21 percent of an employee's gross wages. That's roughly four times the rate 10 years ago.

But Mann, of the Fraternal Order of Police, countered that while employer contribution rates may be high now, there were times when police officers and firefighters paid higher rates than their employers. When employers had lower rates, he noted, they were not asking to pay more to make it equitable.

Employer rates are projected to rise to 37.5 percent by 2024 in order to make up for the system's current indebtedness.

One reason for the increase: cost-of-living raises have been given to public-safety pensioners for 24 consecutive years.

In 2009, each retiree received an additional $1,761, a flat amount calculated on the average pension.

Hacking said the current overall program was "unsustainable," and he said he would work with employees and employers to propose changes to the Legislature next year.

He declined to disclose specific reforms, but he said it was possible DROP "will not look like the one we have now."

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

WSJ- Peter Berkowitz - Why Liberals Don't Get the Tea Party Movement

Great piece on why so many progressives continue to believe that their solutions for what ails America, more spending by the Federal Government, is the right course of action and we would understand this if we weren't so stupid and uneducated. The reality is that the people of this great nation fully understand that spending money we don't have, and burdening our children with unpayable debts is what got us in this mess in the first place and that more of the same will lead to this country's demise.

The Democrats and many of the Republicans in Washington have tried to dismiss the Tea Party movement as nothing more than a bunch of kooks, when in reality the majority of Americans continue to show that they support the movement's ideas of limited government and less spending by electing candidates that profess to believe in these ideas over Washington insiders.

The President and his friends truly believe we are just a bunch of Homer Simpsons who should just be happy to have a job and a mug full of Duff at Moe's but should leave the heavy thinking to them as they plan our lives. The President recently stated that "part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now," are that "facts and science and argument [do] not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared. And the country is scared." Yes, Mr President Americans are scared, but they are scared of what you and you friends have planned next and what that means for our children's futures. However, just because we are scared doesn't mean we are too stupid to understand your policies. In reality we fully comprehend your policies and that makes us highly motivated this November to vote out members in Congress that believe, as you do, that your plan for America is the right one.


Why Liberals Don't Get the Tea Party Movement

Our universities haven't taught much political history for decades. No wonder so many progressives have disdain for the principles that animated the Federalist debates

By PETER BERKOWITZ

Highly educated people say the darndest things, these days particularly about the tea party movement. Vast numbers of other highly educated people read and hear these dubious pronouncements, smile knowingly, and nod their heads in agreement. University educations and advanced degrees notwithstanding, they lack a basic understanding of the contours of American constitutional government.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman got the ball rolling in April 2009, just ahead of the first major tea party rallies on April 15, by falsely asserting that "the tea parties don't represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They're AstroTurf (fake grass-roots) events."

Having learned next to nothing in the intervening 16 months about one of the most spectacular grass-roots political movements in American history, fellow Times columnist Frank Rich denied in August of this year that the tea party movement is "spontaneous and leaderless," insisting instead that it is the instrument of billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch.

Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne criticized the tea party as unrepresentative in two ways. It "constitutes a sliver of opinion on the extreme end of politics receiving attention out of all proportion with its numbers," he asserted last month. This was a step back from his rash prediction five months before that since it "represents a relatively small minority of Americans on the right end of politics," the tea party movement "will not determine the outcome of the 2010 elections."
You can find the rest of the editorial here.

Friday, September 3, 2010

AFSCME’s Big, Brazen Attack- Labor union spends a pretty penny on misleading ads against GOP House candidates in Michigan and Nevada

If you want to know how badly people will lie to get someone elected you only have to look at recent ads being produced by Unions in support of Democratic canidates.

Afscmes Big Brazen Attack

The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees is spending more than $1.5 million on ads that attack Republican congressional candidates in Michigan and Nevada. The big ad buy from the labor union also comes with some grandiose — and misleading — claims:


  • An ad in Michigan says GOP candidate Tim Walberg cast votes that "helped burn down our economy." But the four Democratic-backed bills the ad cites all passed — regardless of how Walberg voted.

  • The ad also charges that Walberg "skipped out on a vote" to save auto industry jobs. He was in the hospital, recovering from surgery, when the House voted on, and easily passed, the automakers bailout bill.

  • In Nevada, an ad claims that Republican Joe Heck’s Social Security proposal "would have erased" a woman’s retirement. But Heck has called for voluntary private accounts, not forced "privatization" of the whole system.

  • Another ad makes the over-the-top charge that Heck is "dangerous to women," because of his Social Security idea and his opposition to a state bill to require insurance coverage of a cervical cancer vaccine. Heck opposed the bill, but it easily became law.
Both Republican candidates are running against freshman Democrats in the House.




Wednesday, May 19, 2010

We Are Better Than That

The best campaign ad ever created. Good Luck Dale!!!

Dale Peterson, Alabama Agriculture Commission, ICAUCUS endorsed candidate fighting the fight to save our country. Some people recognize the enemies from within & without. We need fighters today, people that are not afraid to stand & tell the Government NO!!! Help Dale Stand & Defend our Country, it starts 1 state at a time.http://www.dalepeterson2010.com/donatehere.html

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Tea Party Boosted by Rand Paul Kentucky Republican Primary Win

Congratulations Mr. Paul!!!! And thank you Kentucky for picking the true conservative to represent the GOP in the November elections!!!

By John McCormick and Catherine Dodge


May 18 (Bloomberg) -- The Tea Party movement claimed a victory with Rand Paul’s Republican primary win for U.S. Senate in Kentucky, one of four states holding elections today.

The Associated Press declared Paul, 47, the winner over Secretary of State Trey Grayson, 38, who was backed by Kentucky’s Republican establishment, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Paul was ahead in the race over Grayson, 59 percent to 37 percent, with close to 40 percent of the vote counted, according to the AP.

Paul, an ophthalmologist and son of Representative Ron Paul of Texas, was embraced by Tea Party activists as part of their quest to promote a limited-government agenda. He touted support from the Tea Party in many of his campaign speeches.

Results from primaries in Pennsylvania, Arkansas and Oregon will also offer a broad measurement of anti-incumbent sentiment among the electorate. Two incumbent U.S. senators, both backed by President Barack Obama, are facing primary opponents who could deny them re-nomination in a year that’s becoming tough for incumbents.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-18/tea-party-boosted-by-rand-paul-kentucky-republican-primary-win.html

Monday, May 10, 2010

New Jersey Democrats Propose Raising State income Taxes

Big surprise the Democrats big plan for fixing New Jersey's high taxes is to tax the rich more. Last time I checked the rich already pay more than their fair share. By the way many of the millionaires that will be affected by the new tax are actually small businesses who pay income tax as individuals. (S-Corp)

New Jersey Republican State Committee Chairman Jay Webber Issues Statement On The Democratic Legislative Leaders' Proposal To Raise The State's Income Tax

TRENTON - New Jersey Republican State Committee Chairman Jay Webber today issued the following statement in response to Democratic Legislative leaders’ proposal to raise the state’s income tax.

“There they go again. As if 115 tax increases over the last eight years weren't bad enough, the Democrats want to raise taxes on the most overtaxed people in the nation. We know where their tax increases got us -- job losses, budget deficits, and ever more government spending -- and we are not going back. The Democrats drove this state into the economic ditch, and we're not going to give them the keys to the car again.

"Governor Christie and the Republican Party know that to restore economic growth and prosperity to New Jersey, we need to control government spending, not raise taxes. That's the direction in which New Jersey needs to go."

N.J. Democrats propose tax hike on those making more than $1M
By Statehouse Bureau Staff
Star Ledger
May 10, 2010, 2:13PM

Top Democratic lawmakers today proposed raising taxes on so-called true millionaires -- those making more than $1 million a year -- to pay for restored senior property tax rebates and prescription drug benefits.

Democratic legislators, led during a Statehouse news conference by Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) and Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver (D-Essex), said the tax increase would apply to about 16,000 New Jersey residents.

"When the governor talks about shared sacrifice I think we all get it, and we all agree," said Sweeney. "But shared sacrifice means 100 percent of us share in the sacrifice, not 99 percent."

The plan challenged Republican Gov. Chris Christie's pledge against raising taxes in the budget for the fiscal year that starts in July. Christie has argued that a repeat of last year's income tax surcharge -- which affected those with incomes over $400,000 -- would hurt small business owners and slow economic growth.

Christie immediately rejected the Democrats' proposal, accusing them of trying to "pander" to senior citizens with a one-year fix that will harm the state's broader economy. He repeated his vow to veto any tax increase, and characterized the dispute as a "philosophical difference" between himself and foes who want a bigger government.

The governor questioned how lawmakers proposed to raise the same amount of revenue from 16,000 taxpayers that had previously been raised from 63,000 people.

"It's a cute idea, but their math doesn't work," Christie said.

He spoke at a news conference where he introduced a 33-bill package of reforms, including a constitutional amendment capping property tax hikes at 2.5 percent. The only exceptions would be for towns' debt service or if local voters decide to override the cap. Contract awards for public workers like police, firefighters and teachers -- including salaries, health benefits, vacation time and other perks -- also could not increase by more than 2.5 percent a year.

Those changes -- which would require legislative approval -- would truly make a difference for senior citizens who want an affordable state, Christie said.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/05/nj_democrats_to_propose_tax_hi.html