October 31, 2011
Posted by on
The website Politico has done an investigation and found that while GOP frontrunner Herman Cain was head of the National Restaurant Association, there were two female employees who accused him of sexual harrassment. The two were asked to leave the NRA in return for receiving cash settlements and promising to keep what happened under wraps.
You can read the article to get the details of the situation, but what comes to mind for me is simply this: how will this play out? The criticism from the Left is already flying fast and furious. He’s been called an Uncle Tom. He’s being used by the Tea Party to cover up their racist leanings. And so on. Now, this gives detractors new ammunition.
But I wonder if many of the most vocal detractors will be people who were willing to give former president Bill Clinton a pass. People who still talk about Anita Hill’s accusations of harrassment of Clarence Thomas while they were at the EEOC say nothing of how accusations of Clinton’s dalliances were floating around well before he ran for and won the presidency. Paula Jones filed a lawsuit against Clinton in 1994 and was treated like a pariah–until “the dress” appeared and Clinton had to settle and also deal with getting impeached for perjury.
My point is, regardless of which side it happens to, its always interesting to see the reaction from the other side, whose supporters are usually quick to forget that they were fine with what happened when their person did it. It’s only bad when the other side does it, right?
Having said that, is this something that, if true, should DQ Cain from the race? Will this pass over, or will this become a stone around his neck? Stay tuned.
July 2, 2011
Posted by on
I’d written before that if Ronald Reagan ran for president, he wouldn’t make it our of the Republican primaries these days. Why? Because of his stance on taxes. You see, for all the railing today’s GOP is doing about no tax increases or ending of tax breaks, what gets overlooked is Reagan’s overall record on taxes and revenue.
Surely we’ve all heard that Reagan cut taxes. The storyline goes “Reagan cut taxes and the economy grew.” But therein lies some serious policy omission. After a massive tax rate cut in 1981, Reagan along with Congress (which included a Republican-led Senate) proceeded to pass a number of measures designed to raise revenue. Any of those measures would be criticized today as tax increases.
I’d been surprised that little has been said about this. But finally, an article in Politico spells it out:
The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) is the most famous, because of its historic size and timing, a dramatic course correction that quickly followed Reagan’s signature income tax cuts in 1981. But in the six years after were four more deficit-reduction acts, which combined to almost double TEFRA’s revenue impact on an annual basis.
Translated into current dollars, the total revenue increases for the five bills would then be equal to about $190 billion a year. That’s far in excess of anything that has been proposed by the White House in recent deficit talks led by Vice President Joseph Biden, yet most of these increases were approved when Republicans controlled the Senate in the 1980’s.
Democrats could really bash Republicans’ heads with this. Instead of the insipid arguments we keep hearing about “tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires” and “tax breaks for Big Oil” a simple tack of “well, Reagan did it” would be nearly impossible for Republicans to counter. After all, Reagan is patron saint of conservatism.
March 21, 2011
Posted by on
Just a quick hit, from Politico, where it seems President Obama’s actions in Libya have have ticked off his own party members:
A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.
Further, Rep. Dennis Kucinich brought up the “i” word:
Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.
Now, Kucinich has come up with some off-the-wall things in the past, and this is no different. But to me, this just goes to show that as Obama not only tacks to the center in terms of policy, and also becomes more agressive militarily, he risks having his own party mates turning against him. Time will tell.
Liberal Democrats in uproar over Libya action
March 4, 2011
Posted by on
A Politico article cites a recent report that shows that the people heading the country’s largest unions aren’t do so bad for themselves:
Leaders earned between $173,000 and $618,000 at major unions, the Center for Public Integrity found in examining 2009 tax records, with some groups paying dozens of employees in the six figures. At the three major unions , which together represent more than 5.6 million public workers, presidents’ salaries in 2009 ranged between $400,000 and $500,000.
For the most part, I and most other people don’t begrudge a person for how much money they make. But many of the same people who support unions also complain vocally about company execs and their salaries. It would seem to me if one can make that complaint, but look at this report and be ok with it, that there seems to be a level of hypocrisy.
Read more: Report: Union heads make six figures
November 17, 2010
Posted by on
People hear about “earmarks” but many aren’t sure what they really are. In short, an earmark is when a piece of legislation is added to a bill directing money be spent on a specific project. Members of Congress do it all the time to steer federal money home to their districts to fund different things. Of course, many will yell about pork until it pertains to their own district. Then, its not pork, its critical. Need an infamous case? Look up the “Bridge to Nowhere” debacle in Alaska.
Brandon Arnold writes a good article in Politico about how most states are getting less in earmarks than they should based on how much tax revenue comes from that state:
You and Your Neighbor’s Pork.
The article is good, but his follow-up is even better, with a chart showing how much states pay in taxes and receive in earmarks. New Yorkers are definitely getting the screwjob here:
Earmark Donor States.
Of course, if all earmarks are banned, we won’t have this problem.