Is Republican Protecting HIS Special Interest

North Carolina Republican Party Chairman Robin Hayes is a wealthy man whose family fortune comes from ownership of a textile plant that manufactures Cannon towels and sheets. He is entitled to spend his wealth any way he sees fit but when he uses his wealth and influence to affect people in a state thousands of miles away then there is a problem.

The Pebble Mine Project is near Bristol Bay in Alaska and that project would provide jobs to many people, assist the area’s depressed economy and provide for this nation’s energy needs.

There is one problem. Hayes likes to vacation in the area some 65 miles or so from the project site. He spends time at a luxury lodge that costs thousands of dollars a week (more than the per capita annual income in the area per the article). Hayes likes to spend time at Brian Kraft’s Alaska Sportsman’s lodges where he is able to fish for the week.

Yes, Hayes is working with the EPA to keep the Pebble Mine Project from moving forward in a state that he has nothing to do with except he likes to vacation there.

Isn’t this similar to Ted Kennedy liking wind turbines but not near his home because they would block his view?

It is not unusual for people to put their desires above those of others and this is particularly true of wealthy people (especially if they are liberals) but when their desires affect the livelihood of people and the needs of the country then there is a problem.

If Hayes is involved because of his vacation spot then he would be better suited as chair of the Democrat Party in North Carolina.

There is no indication that he is involved because he vacations there but anyone with brains can read between the lines.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

Someone Can’t Face Reality

I received a message via my contact page from someone using the name L-Dog. The message came from an Alaska.gov server. More specifically, it came from the Department of Administration (or through their server, anyway). This is the message I received:

So if tax cuts create jobs, where are they. We have 7 or so years of the bush [sic] tax cuts and no job growth. So stop lying.

A lie, by definition, is a deliberate attempt to deceive. Since I did no such thing, then it is not a lie. But let us explore.

The Bush tax cuts took place in 2003 and went into full force in 2004 so yes, it has been about 7 years though there were earlier tax cuts. After the Bush tax cuts, 5 million jobs were created and the revenue to the Treasury increased. This is not to say things were great because Bush was a big spender. He and Congress spent far more than we took in though now those numbers pale in comparison to Obama.

The linked chart shows that from about 2000 to 2003 revenue decreased. There are a number of reasons including 9/11 and a recession. The Clinton tech bubble was bursting as well and the Federal Reserve raised interest rates 6 times from 1999-2000. From 2003 to 2007 revenues increased as a result of the tax cuts. In 2007 Democrats took control of Congress and revenues again began to decrease. We were also heading into another recession. It is also important to note that the first tax cuts of 2001 were to be phased in over several years and the economy and job production lagged in the early years.

Heritage published a report about the tax cuts and this, in part, is what that organization had to say:

In 2003, capital gains tax rates were reduced. Rather than expand by 36% as the Congressional Budget Office projected before the tax cut, capital gains revenues more than doubled to $103 billion.

The CBO incorrectly calculated that the post-March 2003 tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion. Revenues for 2006 came in $47 billion above the pre-tax cut baseline.

Here’s what else happened after the 2003 tax cuts lowered the rates on income, capital gains and dividend taxes:

  • GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1%.
  • The S&P 500 dropped 18% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32% over the next six quarters.
  • The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.

The timing of the lower tax rates coincides almost exactly with the stark acceleration in the economy. Nor was this experience unique. The famous Clinton economic boom began when Congress passed legislation cutting spending and cutting the capital gains tax rate.

In late 2007 the economy began to cool. By 2008, it entered a recession. The housing bubble burst, precipitating a financial crisis. But after 50 months of unimpeded growth, it is ludicrous to insist that the tax cuts caused the recession, let alone the global financial meltdown. Even after the Fannie and Freddie Mac-induced bust, there were still one million net jobs created during the Bush years.

So L-Dog of Alaska, the Bush tax cuts did indeed create jobs. The net gain was 1 million after a 5 million increase that was mostly wiped out by the government (read Democrat) induced trauma known as Fannie and Freddie.

Revenue increased, jobs were produced and the unemployment rate was in the 4-6 range. This happened despite a massive blow we took on 9/11.

Tax cuts, long term ones, create jobs because the private sector employers (government DOES NOT create jobs) know what to expect and are able to run their businesses accordingly. They can hire because they know what their tax burden will be. Uncertainty leads them to stop hiring and take a wait and see approach. Ronald Reagan cut taxes and he had tremendous job growth as well as increased revenue to the government.

If we could get government to stop spending what they take and then some we could get our house in order.

So, if tax cuts do not produce jobs why is Barack Obama running around claiming to be a tax cutter (he has raised them, not cut them)? Why did Democrats fight to keep the Bush tax cuts last year? They cited the problems with increasing taxes in a bad economy and how it would harm job growth so if tax cuts do not equal jobs why would they fight for the tax cuts enacted by a man they absolutely hated? Additionally, why did the Congress cut payroll taxes last year (the Social Security tax) if they thought it would not help.

A lot of things are working against any tax cuts and a major part is the out of control spending and the Keynesian economic policies that Obama embraces. You can’t keep spending money we don’t have to cure a spending problem. Tax cuts with discipline in DC will solve the problems.

When producers are taxed more it leaves them less capital to run their businesses and that means they can’t hire. When the tax situation is uncertain they are afraid to act.

So L-Dog, I hope this clears it up for you. I won’t call you a liar, just misinformed.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

No Drilling In Alaska For Shell

Gas prices keep going up and the unrest in the Middle East will not make things any better. Some analysts predict $5.00 a gallon gas this year and if that happens any hope for economic recovery will rapidly fade. We have plenty of our own resources but we are not allowed to use them. We already see how the Obama policies are affecting Texas (in the spotlight of the Superbowl) and now we see the result of his oil policies.

Shell will not be drilling in Alaska this year.

Shell Alaska has dropped plans to drill in the Arctic waters of the Beaufort Sea this year and will concentrate on obtaining permits for the 2012 season, company Vice President Pete Slaiby said Thursday.

The recent remand of air permits issued by the Environmental Protection Agency was the final driver behind the decision, Slaiby said at a news conference. Yahoo News

The administration is doing everything it can to keep us from using our resources. Hell, Obama and his minions are in contempt of court for the refusal to follow court orders related to drilling in the Gulf because they do not care about the law.

The regime has an agenda and it will keep pushing until it destroys us.

How long will this continue before we have push back?

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Killing Animals For Political Gain

Producer and writer Aaron Sorkin has taken issue with Sarah Palin and her reality show all because Palin shot and killed a caribou in the latest episode. There were some folks who did not like the idea that she killed an animal (which, contrary to what Sorkin says, was for food) and Palin addressed that issue in a Facebook posting before the show ever aired. She said that if those who did not like it sat on leather furniture or wore leather clothing they were hypocrites. This apparently set Sorkin off.

In his piece Sorkin describes Palin’s episode as a snuff show in which she killed an animal for political gain. He claims the animal was not for food but only for her political future (even though Palin said it would provide for her family in the episode**). Sorkin also calls Palin all kinds of names and insults her intelligence (girlie men are always threatened by strong women). To top it off Sorkin calls her a phony pioneer girl.

Phony? As if this limp wristed moron could survive in the wilderness.

In any event, this is a typical unhinged moron from the left who sees everything Palin does through the spectrum of politics. Reading what this moron wrote one might get the idea that Palin had never hunted and only shot this animal to make her appear tough for when the 2012 election. Right.

Remember what the Big Dog said. This is all about the left’s hatred for Palin and nothing more. You see, if Sorkin were actually concerned about “snuff films” he would not be involved in films that have lots of killing in them. And if this moron were concerned about politicians who kill animals for political gain he would have spoken up when that dunderhead John Kerry put on his Elmer Fudd outfit and went goose hunting (and allegedly killed a goose) SPECIFICALLY FOR POLITICAL GAIN:

John Kerry brought his campaign for president to a duck blind here in far eastern Ohio Thursday morning, and while he did manage to clip one goose, he was really aiming for undecided voters in this battleground state.

Senior adviser Mike McCurry was quite direct this week in saying that the two-hour predawn hunting trip was another attempt to get voters to know Kerry, who has had some issues with his so-called likeability factor. Kerry also has been talking about his Catholic faith more, and on Sunday he will give a speech on values. Washington Post

Kerry was also concerned about his low rating with the NRA and how he was perceived in middle America so he went hunting. The goose was clearly killed to help Kerry politically. Since John Kerry is anti gun it is obvious that this was all a ruse.

With Palin it is nothing more than what she has done for years. She is a life member of the NRA and has hunted a lot. And, unlike Kerry at the time of his hunt, Palin is not involved in a campaign for office.

So where was Sorkin back in 2004? Where was this guy who is so outraged at his perception of killing an animal for political gain when John Kerry (allegedly) killed an animal for political gain?

You see, Sorkin is a typical liberal. He gets very upset when a Republican does something but completely ignores the same thing when done by a Democrat. He is also typical in that he is upset over the killing of an animal but has never shown outrage over a woman aborting a baby.

Sorkin also represents a growing number of liberals who are afraid of Palin. They wet their panties when her name is mentioned. She scares them immensely.

This is why they act so irrationally when she is involved in anything.

I also imagine it makes the liberals feel bad that “dumb” ole Sarah Palin, unlike their leader, knows which end of a weapon the round comes out.

I mean, Obama probably thinks gangsters hold handguns sideways because that is how they come out of the box.

**I did not see the episode but I saw the clip of the kill. Palin indicates the animal will provide for the family.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Murkowski and the Senate

Now I realize that to many people the election in Alaska isn’t quite over. But, for all practical purposes, it is. Joe Miller is only showing up with 34% of the vote, while “write-ins” are 40%. Since the board of elections has already said they’re going for intent and that anything close will count (Lisa M, Mercowskii, etc.), unless 10% of the people wrote-in “Mickey Mouse,” she’s going to win. I will be curious to see how that pans out in DC.

You see, Lisa Murkowski lost her primary election in Alaska to Joe Miller. The Republicans in the state of Alaska voted for Joe Miller. The Republicans in Alaska did not vote for Lisa Murkowski. To win the general election, Murkowski turned to bribery — most of her support was from unions, native corporations, and state employees. These are all groups that will be paid back with cash from her votes. She made many liberal promises and ran on the idea that she will increase spending in Washington. In other words, she ran on the platform of the Democrat Party, and she was rejected by the Republican Party of Alaska.

However, Murkowski has repeatedly said that if elected, she will be a Republican, she will attempt to represent Alaskan Republicans, and she will caucus with Republicans. Why would she do this? One word: seniority. She is the ranking member of one committee and one sub-committee. The longer you remain, the more power you get. And she certainly wants more power. And, in all likelihood, she will remain (although strangely enough on the current Republican Senate Leadership page, she doesn’t show up at all). But should she?

In my humble opinion, I think the Republicans in the Senate should tell her, “Gee, I’m sorry, but you do not represent Republicans. You lost Republican support in your state. Sure, we’d like your support on our issues, but since you don’t represent the Republicans from Alaska, you’re not part of the Republicans in the Senate.” She should then appear as an independent on the rolls. I’m not holding my breath, but that would show that the Republicans in the Senate are principled and understand what just happened in this election. By taking her back, knowing her positions, and knowing she ran on the Democrat platform, the Republicans in the Senate will show that party affiliation doesn’t matter, principles don’t matter, just win and you’ll be on the team — and that there really is no difference between the two parties.

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.