This is one time when I hate to say I told you so, but as I predicted in 12/09 the economy is going to be booming by 11/10. Click the above to go to the WSJ online stories.
The “New Hampshire Association for Justice,” which is actually a modern day lawyers’ guild is advocating that:
To the extent that the courts cannot absorb the $4 million cut (and I don’t know if the “cut” is a reduction from FY 2010 spending or a reduction from the judiciary’s proposed budget for FY 2011), the solution is to cut spending elsewhere.
This State does not have a “revenue” problem. It has a spending problem.
One of the anti Tea Party talking points being repeated by the leftstream media is that the Tea Partiers don’t understand that President Obama cut their taxes.
What tax cut? The tax rates for 2009 are the same as for 2008, as far as I can tell: 10,15, 25, 28, 33 and 35 percent. The brackets are different, but I believe that they are adjusted every year, so that is nothing new.
So I ask again: What tax cut?
Do you catch the clips of President Obama’s sarcastic and condescending comments about Thursday’s Tea Parties? Investor’s Business Daily did, and had this, among other things, to say:
“You would think they’d be saying thank you,” he said.
In fact, that wasn’t his promise at all.
The article goes on to say that nearly one-half of the $670 billion in tax increases that Obama has enacted hit the middle class.
President Obama’s quest to transform the United States into a European-style quasi-socialist state is not limited to Obamacare, Cap-and-Tax, and other legislative initiatives. Obama also is pursuing this objective by nominating far-left judicial activists to the federal judiciary. I urge you to check out an op-ed in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal regarding Goodwin Liu, a 39 year old Berkeley law school professor. Here are a few excerpts:
These are not aberrations. In 2008, Liu authored a law review article in which he advocated a constitutional right to welfare:
My thesis is that the legitimacy of judicial recognition of welfare rights depends on socially situated modes of reasoning that appeal not to transcendent moral principles for an ideal society, but to the culturally and historically contingent meanings of particular social goods in our own society.… I argue that judicial recognition of welfare rights is best conceived as an act of interpreting the shared understandings of particular welfare goods as they are manifested in our institutions, laws, and evolving social practices. (note the link is to NRO, Bench Memos, not to the law review article; if I can find a link to the law review article, I’ll add it)
Professor Liu is not qualified to be a judge. His IQ might be off the charts, but so is his judicial philosophy.
CALL JUDD GREG AND ASK HIM TO FILIBUSTER LIU’S NOMINATION. (202) 224-3324
Check out this article on the U.S. Supreme Court in National Journal by Stuart Taylor. What makes the article notable is that Taylor is no conservative, yet he acknowledges that:
Thursdays at 6:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m., and Sunday morning.
This week’s guest. REPRESENTATIVE WILL INFANTINE.
Discussing:
NEW HAMPSHIRE’S BUDGET WOES: What’s to blame, a bad economy or John Lynch’s inability to lead?
GAMBLING: A good or bad bet for NH?
Guest post by Rep. Steve Vaillancourt:
How strange it is to see a majority of pro gambling Manchester Democrats ready to vote for Lou D’Allesandro’s Senate Bill 489!
If there’s any group that should vote against this bill, it’s pro gamblers from Manchester.
The D’Allesandro bill, by mandating slots for Rockingham, Seabrook, Hudson, Belmont, the north country, and nowhere else, would gurantee that Manchester never share in the revenue, jobs, or economic development from slots.
The only way Manchester will ever have a shot at slots is to kill the D’Allesdandro bill and push for one next session which provides an open opportunity for everyone and every community to get slots.
No wonder Hudson and Salem Reps are supporting the D’Allesandro bill. It guarnetees three percent of overall revenues (right off the top) to the host communities. By most estimates, that means an annual windfall of $10 million for those towns, both of which, by the way, have at least $20,000 median family income more than Manchester. Even Nashua gets one percent with the D’Allesandro plan which earmarks one percent for communities abutting the towns with slot facilities.
Not only will Manchester not get the jobs associated with slots, it will miss out on $10 million with no hope of ever getting in on the action.
Do you doubt it? Does anyone really think that if 17,000 slots go into the six D’Allesandro locations, there’ll ever be another chance for Manchester? Well, never is a long time, but certainly not in our lifetimes.
But it’s worse than that. Senator D’Allesandro was quoted in the Union Leaded saying that Manchester doesn’t need slots because it has charitable gambling. The one sure way to drive charitiable gambling out of Manchesrter is to pass the D’Allesandro plan. Why? Because those facilities which have slots will be most attractive for charitable gaming tables. Why go to the charitable gaming parlor on the West Side when you could get in the car and go to the one in Hudson or Salem? You might want to play table games while other members of the family play slots there. As the senator himself is fond of saying, “This is a no brainer.”
And it’s a no brainer terrible idea for Manchester.
Wake up Manchester.
The D’Allesandro plan is the worst of all gambling plans for Manchester.
Once the D’Allesandro plan is defeated and the Governor’s commission issues its report in May, we’ll be in the election season. Any person elected to the House or the Senate in November will have plenty of time to file a plan which would make a Manchester group eligible to bring slots to the Queen City.
Senator D’Allesandro apparently thinks only Hudson, Salem, Seabrook, Belmont and the North Country deserve that chance, not his own home city.
Go figure!
Check out this article from the Heritage Foundation:
I have been following politics since 1968. I have never seen a President of the United States run to the TV cameras to gloat over the passage of a piece of legislation. And what gloating. You half-expected Obama, at any moment, to begin pointing at the cameras and chanting “in your face.” No class. None at all.
But what Obama lacked in class, he certainly made up for in arrogance and duplicity. Yet again we were told that Obamacare is unpopular only because the public still just doesn’t understand all of the good things that Obamacare it is going to do to –oops I mean for– them. Yeah, we are just to dumb to understand that, for example, most of these good things don’t kick in until 2014 because if you actually counted ten years of spending under Obamacare against the ten years of hypothetical revenues and savings (both of which are grossly overstated), as opposed to six years of spending versus ten years of revenues which is how Obama counts it, you get washed away in red ink.
No class, but limitless arrogance and duplicity.