The Internal Revenue Service wants to add about 4,000 agents to hunt down tax cheats and still plans to spend $303 million building a system to oversee Obamacare even though its future looks bleak in the U.S. Supreme Court.
A new Government Accountability Office review of the IRS 2012 tax return season and the taxman’s fiscal 2013 budget request also found that the agency’s customer service rating has slipped and 5.5 million returns were delayed a week because of a computer programming glitch.
Obama campaigned on cutting the deficit in half from the levels under Bush, which were a pittance compared to the spending and debt that is going on now.
This has been the plague for Mitt Romney’s election “victories”. In areas he wins the vote turnout is below 2008 levels where many conservatives, who had little faith in John McCain, stayed home. This low turnout problem has followed him in counter per country and state per state. In part, it is his own fault as he has carpet-bombed the states he has done well in with millions of dollars of dishonest negative ads. More and more pundits, including this very writer, said that the idea of Romney’s electability is a myth, and that he just doesn’t have what it takes to close the deal.
CHICAGO (CBS) — Turnout for Tuesday’s Illinois primary in Chicago was a meager 24 percent, officials said.
It was the lowest turnout for a presidential primary in the past 70 years.
Election officials said a lack of contested races was behind the lackluster activity at the polls.
“It’s very, very disappointing,” said Langdon Neal, chairman of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners. “I think what it indicates is that a lack of a contest on the Democratic side at the top of the ticket really did cause our voters not to be engaged in this election.”
Four years ago, Barack Obama was in a heated primary race with Hillary Clinton. This year, Obama has his sights set on the general election. Meantime, GOP front-runner Mitt Romney, who rolled to an easy win in Illinois over his main rival, Rick Santorum.
But that didn’t equate to enthusiasm for Romney, an expert said.
“You could draw a larger crowd at a Green Bay Packers rally in downtown Chicago than what Mr. Romney delivered yesterday in Illinois,” U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Wednesday on CBS This Morning.
In the final six months of his life, Osama bin Laden received a 21-page letter from his media advisor, U.S.-born jihadist Adam Gadahn, that lamented the firing of MSNBC host Keith Olbermann and wished death upon Fox News:
“It should be sent for example to ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN and maybe PBS and VOA. As for Fox News let her die in her anger,” Gadahn wrote. At another point, he said of the networks: “From a professional point of view, they are all on one level — except [Fox News] channel, which falls into the abyss as you know, and lacks objectivity, too.”
As David Ignatius of the Washington Post notes, “What an unintended boost for Fox, which can now boast that it is al-Qaeda’s least favorite network.”
Al-Qaeda’s take on various media outlets offers an interesting window into terrorist perceptions of American media:
In the letter, the media adviser focuses on “how to exploit” the 10th anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001, on television. He worries that CNN “seems to be in cooperation with the government more than the others,” though he praises its “good and detailed” Arabic coverage. “I used to think that MSNBC channel may be good and neutral a bit,” he continues, but then notes the firing of Olbermann.
The media chatter continues: CBS “has a famous program (‘60 Minutes’) that has some popularity and a good reputation.” ABC “is all right; actually, it could be one of the best channels,” because of its chief investigator and terrorism expert, Brian Ross. But all the networks, he complains, will bring in analysts who will “conduct a smearing” of al-Qaeda figures.
No word yet from Keith Olbermann or MSNBC as to whether they plan to tout their top-rated status among terrorists in future promotions.
For those of you who have not seen the administrations blatant hypocrisy when it comes to misogyny take a look HERE and HERE.
The Democrats have repeatedly said the worst things imaginable about Bristol Palin, her mother, her little sister Willow, and her special needs baby brother. Yet those who say those things are held up as icons of virtue at Democrat Party fund raising events.
You don’t know my telephone number, but I hope your staff is busy trying to find it. Ever since you called Sandra Fluke after Rush Limbaugh called her a slut, I figured I might be next. You explained to reporters you called her because you were thinking of your two daughters, Malia and Sasha. After all, you didn’t want them to think it was okay for men to treat them that way:
“One of the things I want them to do as they get older is engage in issues they care about, even ones I may not agree with them on,” you said. “I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way. And I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens.”
And I totally agree your kids should be able to speak their minds and engage the culture. I look forward to seeing what good things Malia and Sasha end up doing with their lives.
But here’s why I’m a little surprised my phone hasn’t rung. Your $1,000,000 donor Bill Maher has said reprehensible things about my family. He’s made fun of my brother because of his Down’s Syndrome. He’s said I was “f—-d so hard a baby fell out.” (In a classy move, he did this while his producers put up the cover of my book, which tells about the forgiveness and redemption I’ve found in God after my past – very public — mistakes.)
If Maher talked about Malia and Sasha that way, you’d return his dirty money and the Secret Service would probably have to restrain you. After all, I’ve always felt you understood my plight more than most because your mom was a teenager. That’s why you stood up for me when you were campaigning against Sen. McCain and my mom — you said vicious attacks on me should be off limits.
Yet I wonder if the Presidency has changed you. Now that you’re in office, it seems you’re only willing to defend certain women. You’re only willing to take a moral stand when you know your liberal supporters will stand behind you.
But…
What if you did something radical and wildly unpopular with your base and took a stand against the denigration of all women… even if they’re just single moms? Even if they’re Republicans?
I’m not expecting your SuperPAC to return the money. You’re going to need every dime to hang on to your presidency. I’m not even really expecting a call. But would it be too much to expect a little consistency? After all, you’re President of all Americans, not just the liberals.
UPDATE – Bristol Responds to Critics
While most of the response she has gotten has been supportive, the critiques Bristol received fell within two categories:
Category 1: “I hate you.”
Example: “JLE” at 7:52 am on March 20:
Bristol Palin you have some nerve President Obama does not owe you anything your a nobody, a young loose cow with kid!!!!! You and your mom are true idiots your Alaskan Hillbillies so go back in your igloos stay out of the public eye we are tired of your UGLY FACED YOUR SON TOO& BROTHER TOO!!!!
At first, the Patheos moderators weren’t letting these types of comments through, but we decided to let you have at least a glimpse of the things people say about my family. (We still don’t approve the dozens and dozens of truly obscene rants. This is a family blog after all!) You can see that Bill Maher is not some lone comedian with a unique perspective on us. Rather, he taps into something evil and dark that resides in the hearts of many people who hate our family. Even after so many years, I’m still a little surprised when people make fun of my little brother. They, however, can’t silence me or my mom. In fact, they motivate the to keep speaking. Evil can’t win!
Category 2: “You’re comparing apples to oranges.”
Example: Donna Hess wrote at 1:14 am on March 20:
Bull, a comedian pretty much can say what they want. Limbaugh actually represents the Republican Party. They pay him. Obama has nothing to do with what Bill Maher says it is his opinion.
Bill Maher is much more than a comedian. He’s a big-time political player who hides behind the “comedian” label whenever he gets criticized. His guest list represents a huge chunk of the Washington establishment[emphasis ours – PoliticalArena] and sometimes even includes prominent Republicans. And as I said in my original post, he’s put himself straight in the middle of presidential politics by giving $1,000,000 to President Obama’s SuperPAC. Bill Maher isn’t just some guy behind a microphone in a seedy comedy club in the middle of nowhere. He’s a comedian and political commentator like Rush is an entertainer and political commentator. He’s a little bit less popular, but his professional failure compared to Rush doesn’t make him any less accountable for his vile speech.
This is what Mitt Romney’s carpet-bombing states with misleading negative ads within the party does. It is likely that Mitt Romney cannot win in November and this poll is exactly why more and more in the GOP are hoping for a brokered convention.
These data are from a Gallup poll conducted March 8-11, 2012. The 35% of Republicans who at this point say they would vote “enthusiastically” for Mitt Romney for president if he were to win the GOP nomination is identical to the 35% of Republicans who said the same about Romney back in late January/early February 2008.
In that same 2008 poll, however, 47% of Republicans said they would vote enthusiastically for John McCain, who ended up as that year’s GOP nominee. In short, Romney’s enthusiasm deficit in 2008 has carried over to his current campaign, with the difference being that none of the other nominees this year are generating any more enthusiasm among Republicans than Romney is.
Republicans are also less enthusiastic about voting for their party’s current pool of candidates than Democrats were about voting for their potential nominees in both 2008 and in 2004. More than half of Democrats in 2008 said they would vote “enthusiastically” for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton if either were to win their party’s presidential nomination. Forty-five percent of Democrats in late January/early February 2004 said they would vote enthusiastically for John Kerry for president.
This symbol has a real impact. This is an example of the power of “iconography”. Iconograpghy is used everyday by advertisers, but its propaganda value has been used by government at least since the times of the Romans. When we think of propaganda we mostly think of spreading lies, but it be also used for communicating complex truths, albeit using exaggerated imagery. I wrote an extended piece on “iconography” HERE which is certainly worth a look.
Since ShePAC started putting the pressure back on the Democrats for their terrible comments about Republican women, not to mention what the Obama campaign did to Hillary Clinton in 2008, the heat on the Democrat’s hypocrisy on this issue has been turned up in the press.
The vote turn out is the same everywhere Romney wins; below 2008 levels. Meaning that if Romney is the nominee we should brace ourselves for a second Obama term. In Illinois the turnout was the lowest it had been in 70 years.
Remember when Obama and the Democrats went on and on saying that ObamaCare would only cost $900 Billion so that it would be revenue neutral (not ad to the deficit)?
It wasn’t just this writer back in his college days who said that this number was a pipe dream. Many conservatives who ran the numbers said it would cost over $2 trillion as I reported in my college days (1, 2, 3, 4).
But it gets worse, the CBO is still underestimating the cost. Why? ObamaCare doesn’t start to spend huge money until the last phase of it’s implementation in 2014, but the new taxes are already starting to be phased in and really ramp up in 2013 just after the election. So ObamaCare is taking in money for over a year before the large expenses start incurring. If we take that into account and start the ten years in 2014, which is much more honest, the expense according to my estimates will be close to $2.3 trillion over ten years. Feel free to mark me on this readers, as I am certain others will verify this in time, as my earliest predictions about ObamaCare have been spot on so there is no reason to believe my estimate will prove to be any different (the Examiner piece below mentions the nine year issue as well).
Remember the adverse selection “death” spiral we spoke of in posts below? The longer ObamaCare goes on the more the costs will rise exponentially as that is exactly what it is designed to do. If Democrats manage to prevent an ObamaCare repeal, they know darn well they will have to replace it with a total government take over soon or the system will blow up in a short time.
President Obama’s national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projectionreleased today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.
Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO’s standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama’s pledge that the legislation would cost “around $900 billion over 10 years.” When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation.
Today, the CBO released new projections from 2013 extending through 2022, and the results are as critics expected: the ten-year cost of the law’s core provisions to expand health insurance coverage has now ballooned to $1.76 trillion. That’s because we now have estimates for Obamacare’s first nine years of full implementation, rather than the mere six when it was signed into law. Only next year will we get a true ten-year cost estimate, if the law isn’t overturned by the Supreme Court or repealed by then. Given that in 2022, the last year available, the gross cost of the coverage expansions are $265 billion, we’re likely looking at about $2 trillion over the first decade, or more than double what Obama advertised.
UPDATE – ObamaCare to force increases in state Medicaid programs:
Again, this is something I wrote about and you can find on my old college blog in the four links above. One of the ways that the costs of ObamaCare was hidden is that some of it’s implementation is through unfunded mandates to state medicaid programs.
The CBO now projects that from 2012 through 2021 the federal government will spend $168 billion more on Medicaid than it expected last year, $97 billion less on subsidies for people to purchase insurance on government-run exchanges and $20 billion less on tax credits to small employers. That works out to a $51 billion increase in the gross cost of expanding coverage from what the CBO estimated a year ago. However, the CBO also expects the federal government to collect more revenue from penalties on individuals and employers, as well as other taxes. These revenue increases will more than offset the spending increases, according to the CBO, so it now expects the cost of Obamacare during those years to be $48 billion lower.
It’s also worth noting that we were told time and again during the health care debate that the law didn’t represent a government takeover of health care. But by 2022, according to the CBO, 3 million fewer people will have health insurance through their employer, while 17 million Americans will be added to Medicaid and 22 million will be getting coverage through government-run exchanges.
Editor’s Note – It is unfortunate that I have to gloat about such bad news, but this very writer was among the first in the country to observe and write that ObamaCare creates what is called an “Adverse Selection Spiral” (also known as an economic death spiral); meaning that the short term incentives, regulations and tax structure in the ObamaCare is designed to make the long term risk management economically unsustainable due to the long term increases in costs forced into the system.
This very writer said that ObamaCare is designed to break private insurance and make people “cry out for a public option”. Ironically some months later former Democrats Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said the exact same thing.
Speaker Pelosi used IUSB Vision Editor Chuck Norton’s exact words that ObamaCare will “make them cry out for a public option” on C-Span [Notice how all of the Democrats cackle maniacally when she says it]:
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told the House Ways and Means Committee on Tuesday that the days of private health insurance are coming to an end in the United States.
“The private market is in a death spiral,” Sebelius said, contending this would be the case whether or not President Barack Obama’s health care law had been enacted.
At the Ways and Means hearing, Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) asked Sebelius about the administration’s assurances that people who liked their current health insurance plan would be able to keep it under the new law.
“How about when the president said you can keep your health care coverage, if you like it?” Roskam said. “And yet, the reality is, according to Bloomberg (News) at least, 9 percent fewer businesses are offering medical coverage than in 2010. There the rhetoric didn’t meet the reality, did it?”
Sebelius did not contest the numbers.
[Here comes the spin – Political Arena Editor] “Well again, congressman, what you’re seeing, it wouldn’t have mattered if we had passed the Affordable Care Act or not,” she said. “The private market is in a death spiral.”
It would have happened anyways is the new spin. Nice try.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says that private health insurance providers are in a “death spiral.” Of course they are. Isn’t that the way the authors of ObamaCare planned it?
Testifying last Wednesday in front of the House Ways and Means Committee, Sebelius was asked by Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., if the administration was being honest when President Obama promised that those who liked their health plans could keep them.
Said Sebelius: “The private market is in a death spiral.”
Sebelius tried to temper her comment by claiming the private insurance market would collapse even if the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act had not been passed. But the truth is, the market cannot survive under the growing weight of government, and Obama-Care was to be the final heavy load that will crush it.
Don’t believe it? Look at the provisions of ObamaCare and consider them in context with the Democrats’ constant public demonization of insurers.
Start with the mandates. By now, most of the country knows that ObamaCare requires health insurers to pay for contraception and other birth-control measures. But that’s not the law’s only mandate. Among the many diktats of the Democrats’ health care overhaul is the requirement that insurers must spend at least 80 cents on medical claims for every $1 they take in from premiums in the individual and small group markets, and 85 cents from premiums in the large group market.
Insurers’ first response was to cut broker commissions. But what gets trimmed next? At what point will the industry no longer be able to pay competent people in companies because of the medical-loss ratio mandate, or to make the profits needed to stay in business?
Maybe the industry could simply increase premiums to avoid problems created by the medical-loss ratio. But the central planners thought of that, too. Under ObamaCare, the secretary of Health and Human Services has the power to decline premium increases of 10% or more in the individual and small group markets. Only those considered “reasonable” by bureaucrats’ standards will be accepted. This policy is an effective price control that’s sure to cause losses in the industry.
Remember Bart Stupak? He was head of the Democrats for Life Caucus in the House. President Obama promised him an executive order, in exchange for the votes of his group of congressmen, to strip public funding of abortion so ObamaCare would never use tax dollars to kill babies? Well guess how well that worked out? And Stupak’s constituents were not fooled as he sold out the values he ran on and sacrificed his political career to advance the cause of government power.
Related:
The Myth of the Pro-Life Democrat in Congress – LINK
Stupak’s “Pro-Life” Caucus Gets $4.7 Billion in Earmark Funds after Voting for Public Funding of Abortion – LINK
Despite President Obama’s empty rhetoric to the contrary, a recently finalized Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rule makes clear that ObamaCare will use tax dollars to fund abortion.
Sadly, these facts have now come to fruition. HHS, under the direction of President Obama and Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has issued its final rule for implementing the state exchanges created by the ObamaCare law. These final rules include requirements for how abortion funding must be handled.
First off, when we consider that the President told us that his Executive Order made it clear that abortion was not a part of this law, it is reasonable to ask why the final rule references ‘abortion’ 30 times? If abortion funding was not to be a part of this law, the statute needed only a short, clear prohibition of such funding – a prohibition offered in the Pitts/Stupak Amendment, which was initially approved by the House of Representatives, and later stripped out by the President and then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Because the law does indeed contradict the President by allowing abortion funding, this final rule goes to great lengths to devise a scheme that attempts to hide that funding. The result is a complicated web of regulations that reference ‘abortion’ 30 times.
Everyone concerned about government promotion and funding of abortions should read this rule for themselves, but allow me to outline a couple of the basic components with regard to the abortion requirements.
First, beginning on page 453, this rule describes and reaffirms the “segregation of funds for abortion services” as required under ObamaCare. Essentially, insurance plans may include abortion services in a plan subsidized by federal taxpayer dollars. To justify this inclusion, the plan will collect a $1 “surcharge” from all policy holders. Of course this surcharge will be collected as part of a larger premium payment, and not as a part of a separate collection. Additionally, plans are entirely free to advertise the total cost of these plans without mentioning that $1 of the premium is specifically intended to subsidize the abortion coverage. Further, the surcharge is only to be disclosed when the policyholder first enrolls.
In short, the $1 surcharge does not even attempt to resemble an actual offset of the abortion coverage cost, is virtually undetectable by the policy holder, and serves the singular purpose of providing a flimsy defense for inserting the federal government into the business of providing coverage for elective abortions.
Additionally, on pages 364-365, the final rule makes it entirely plausible that States that have passed laws prohibiting abortion coverage will be forced to provide that coverage anyway. This would occur through the multi-state plans administered by the Federal Government. The final rule simply says that rules governing these plans will be issued at a later date, so it’s entirely feasible (I’d say likely) that these plans will be permitted to cover abortion, even when one of the States within the multi-State area prohibits it.
Of course, this very writer was predicting this from mid 2009 and onward (2) as ObamaCare is phased in more and more people and businesses are seeing the results. So much for Obama’s promise that ObamaCare would save you $2,500 a year.
NEW YORK–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Compliance with health care reform is already driving up costs for some employers’ group health plans, and a majority of employers expect price increases to be passed on to employees, according to a health care reform survey released today by the Willis Human Capital Practice, a unit of Willis Group Holdings (nyse:WSH), the global insurance broker.
“The survey suggests employers realize that costs of providing medical benefits will increase and that they will likely have to pass those costs on to their employees.”
This is what will hurt you most:
Employers expect that similar employers will pass increased costs on to employees: More than half of the responding employers felt that other, similar employers would pass more of the cost for dependent coverage on to their employees. One-third of respondents thought other, similar employers would reduce coverage to the lowest-cost package to avoid the “pay-or-play” penalty, and a majority of employers also thought that wellness programs would be expanded in scope. Finally, nearly two-thirds of the employers expected that employee contributions would be increased.
You read that correctly, the result will be increased costs to you AND reduced coverage.
Indiana Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels said Tuesday that the size of the U.S. national debt and the rate at which the debt is accumulating will lead the United States to “ruin” — and no other outcome is mathematically possible.
“Whether one believes in a large, very active government or something more limited, mathematically, the amount of debt we already have and the terrifying rate at which it is accumulating will lead to national ruin,” Daniels said.
“There’s no other outcome arithmetically possible,” he added.
As of February 2012, according to monthly U.S. Treasury statements, our national debt is $15.48 trillion, about a $130 billion more from the month prior when the national debt was $15.35 trillion.
The Hoosier governor made his remarks in a conference call hosted by No Labels, a group of Democrats, Republicans, and independents “dedicated to making government work again.”
Daniels said that Congress has become dysfunctional in terms of dealing with our economic and fiscal situation — and picked a “lousy time” to become dysfunctional, since the United States has never faced “a non-military danger or threat as large as the one we face today.”
Daniels said that when addressing the problem of the national debt and trying to level with audiences, he usually asks them to put ideology aside for the moment and focus on the math surrounding our national debt – something he said no longer “works.”
“Look, let’s put the ideological debate off (to) tomorrow,” Daniels said. “You know, for today, can we agree that the math here does not work?”
Mathematically speaking, Daniels said, it all breaks down.
“There is absolutely no way” that cutting or taxing our way out our fiscal problems are the solutions. Instead, we need a private economy that grows much faster, and meaningful entitlement reform, Daniels said.
An American flag with President Obama’s image in place of the stars flew over a Florida county’s Democrat headquarters long enough to enrage local veterans who called the altered banner “a disgrace.”
You can see our previous Sandra Fluke coverage HERE and HERE and HERE.
Not only does she take grand international vacations, not only does she go to a top private university, she travels to and fro across the country and is represented by one of the most powerful PR firms in Washington D.C.; yet, she insists that government should force the Catholic Church to pay for her birth control. It gets better, it turns out that her boyfriend is one of those evil super rich 1 percenters that groups she associates with protests against for not spreading their wealth…
Just when you thought you’d seen everything.
Poor Sandra Fluke, the 30 year-old far left activist who wants you to pay for her $9 a month birth control, is dating a rich socialist.
They recently traveled to Spain and Italy together.
It was a lovely getaway for the women’s rights activist and her rich socialist boyfriend.
Here the two lovebirds are roughing it late at night in Barcelona – drunk.
Sandra Fluke and Adam in Barcelona
And, here the poor little darling tries to make ends meet in Pompeii.
Sandra Fluke in Pompeii
What a brave woman. How does she manage it all?
Brooks Bayne has much more on Sandra and her very rich boyfriend.
Compared to last year, State tax collections for February shriveled by $1.2 billion or 22%. The deterioration is more than double the shocking $535 million reported decline for last month. The cumulative fiscal year decline is $6.1 billion or down 11% versus this period in 2011.
While California Governor Brown promises strong economic growth is just around the corner, State Controller John Chaing proves that the best way for Sacramento politicians to hurt the economy and thereby generate lower tax revenue, is to have the highest tax rates in the nation.
California politicians seem delusional in their continued delusion that high taxes have not savaged the State’s economy. Each month’s disappointment is written off as due to some one-time event.
The State Controller’s office did acknowledge that higher than normal tax refunds for February might have reduced the collection of some personal income taxes. Given that 2012 has an extra day in February for leap year, there might have been one day more of tax refunds sent out. But the Controller’s report shows personal income tax collections fell by $325 million, or 16% versus last year. Furthermore, leap year would have added another day for retail sales and use tax collection, but those revenues also fell during February-by an even larger $813 million, 25% decline from 2011.
The more likely reason tax collections continue falling is that businesses and successful people are leaving California for the better tax rates available in more pro-business states.
Derisively referred to as “Taxifornia” by the independent Pacific Research Institute, California wins the booby prize for the highest personal income taxes in the nation and higher sales tax rates than all but four other states. Though Californians benefit from Proposition 13 restrictions on how much their property tax can increase in one year, the state still has the worst state tax burden in the U.S.
Spectrum Locations Consultants recorded 254 California companies moved some or all of their work and jobs out of state in 2011, 26% more than in 2010 and five times as many as in 2009. According SLC President, Joe Vranich: the “top ten reasons companies are leaving California: 1) Poor rankings in surveys 2) More adversarial toward business 3) Uncontrollable public spending 4) Unfriendly business climate 5) Provable savings elsewhere 6) Most expensive business locations 7) Unfriendly legal environment for business 8) Worst regulatory burden 9) Severe tax treatment 10) Unprecedented energy costs.
Vranich considers California the worst state in the nation to locate a business and Los Angeles is considered the worst city to start a business. Leaving Los Angeles for another surrounding county can save businesses 20% of costs. Leaving the state for Texas can save up to 40% of costs. This probably explains why California lost 120,000 jobs last year and Texas gained 130,000 jobs.
California Governor Jerry Brown’s answer to the State’s failing economy and crumbling tax revenue is to place a $6 billion tax increase initiative on the ballot to support K-12 public schools. He promises to only “temporarily” raise personal income rates by 25% on any of the rich folk who haven’t already left.
“If you are not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” – Malcolm X
Political Arena 