Lion or Rabbit?

   When Obama was elected in 2008. people asked what I hoped for in his presidency. I always replied that I hoped people would like him just as much after 4 years as they did to elect him in the first place. Then they elected him to serve a second term, but that in itself is not unusual as about 21 presidents have been re-elected to a second term, 12 of those since 1900. What is unusual about Obama is that though his popularity appears low among some polls, his overall approval rating was highest when taking the country through tough economic times (Gallup poll: 69% approval in January 2009), and lowest during the last year (Gallup poll: 40% during November 2014) when voter frustration about the gridlock in Congress combined with his seeming inaction in the face of some crises that arose during this last year, for example the Ebola epidemic and and the successes of the middle-eastern ISIS or ISIL group.

   The response to the Ebola epidemic has varied from state to state, and the chief criticism of the federal response is that the Obama administration had done little to show that the measures undertaken to contain the disease were, or could be, effective. Taking matters into their own hands, governors of several states attempted to put into effect quarantine measures. On October 30, 2014, the Boston Globe's editorial entitled "Ebola quarantine rules should reflect science, not hysteria," reads in part:
  "This patchwork response sows confusion and seems grounded more in politics and fear of the unknown than in science. It also has a troubling unintended consequence: punishing the altruistic health care workers who are contributing their skills to a global effort to stop the epidemic at its source. That global effort needs more troops and supplies, not fewer. ...
   At the very least, state officials need to establish safe and habitable conditions and make sure that those in quarantine are afforded due process under the law."

   I am sure that many feel that as President, Obama has the duty to insist on a workable and consistent response to this disease's possible spread. But I do not think it reasonable to lay the blame of a lack of timely response that offers solace to the population at large about a crisis that, a month later, has been superseded by the current pseudo-event conjured up by the media to capture public attention and sell ad space.

   In addition to the problems in Syria, in the Ukraine and in other parts of the world, focus on the the newest radical group ISIS, or ISIL, has been made a benchmark for the Obama administration's lack of direction in dealing with these crises. Such pronouncements of inaction, not surprisingly by the same news agencies that whipped up public sentiment about the Ebola scare, are bolstered by pronouncements by McConnell & Boehner of Presidential inaction in the face of this threat, but who are also ever critical of Obama's overstepping his presidential authority.

  In an abrupt about face, an article in the NY Post on September 28, 2014, "Boehner also said he believed that Obama had the authority under post-Sept. 11, 2001, resolutions to order the airstrikes that began inside Syria on Sept. 22, while Congress was out of session." Odd then that Obama's order should foment such a firestorm of protest among the conservative members of congress as well as conservative media pundits. The problem is that no one can decide if he is being too timid or too aggressive. 

   For example, George Will stated on Fox news during a morning show on September 1, 2014:  "Well, yes, I mean, caution, which is what he's being criticized for, is a nice defect to have after the first decade of the century. On the other hand, the rhetoric has not been cautious. The president talked about rolling back ISIS, Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff talking about the need to destroy ISIS. That means liberate large cities that have been taken, which you can't do with F-16s and F-18s.
  "I think what the president is trying to do, and I sympathize with this, is to get the neighborhood to rally. I mean, look what's in the neighborhood. Saudi Arabia has 250 highly competent aircraft and an AWACS system to control it. You got Iran and Iraq, are enemies of ISIS, so is Syria, Jordan, and the Kurds who are, for all intents and purposes, a nation right now.
  "So, you got six nations in the neighborhood. If they can't do it, we shouldn't."

Rush Limbaugh, the Vicodin addict, suffers from verbal diarrhea...

By NBC News and msnbc.com staff

    "Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, already under fire from Democrats over his language in discussing a Georgetown University law student who testified about contraception, ratcheted up his rhetoric on Thursday, saying the student should post an online sex video if taxpayers are forced to pay for contraception.

    Limbaugh on Wednesday had referred to student Sandra Fluke as a 'slut' for supporting a requirement that health insurance cover contraception. On his radio show Thursday, Limbaugh went a little further:

'So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.'

    House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi had called on Limbaugh to apologize Thursday about the 'slut' comment, made after Fluke testified recently about contraception before an unofficial Democratic committee.

Here's what Limbaugh said on Wednesday’s edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

    'What does it say about the college coed Susan Fluke [sic], who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.

    'She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps.

    "The johns, that's right. We would be the johns -- no! We're not the johns. Well -- yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word.'

Fluke had been turned away in February from testifying before the Republican-controlled House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the Obama administration's policy requiring that employees of religion-affiliated institutions have access to health insurance that covers birth control.

Romney's Tax Plan, mentioned in prior posting...

If Romney's tax plan favors the middle-class, then these figures lie. Off to the lower right are "Avg Tax Increase" which clearly show a dramatic lowering of taxes for the upper 5%, but not much of a break for the lower 80%.

Table T12-0004
Mitt Romney's Tax Plan
Baseline: Current Policy
Distribution of Federal Tax Change by Cash Income Percentile, 2015 1
Summary Table
Cash Income Percentile2,3	Tax Units with Tax Increase or Cut 4				Percent Change in After-Tax Income5	Share of Total Federal Tax Change	Average Federal Tax Change ($)				Average Federal Tax Rate6
Change (% Points)			Under the Proposal			With Tax Cut			With Tax Increase
Pct of Tax Units			Avg Tax Cut			Pct of Tax Units			Avg Tax Increase
Lowest Quintile	13.2	-126		18.7	927	-1.4	-3.8	157		1.4	3.4
Second Quintile	29.3	-298		18.1	932	-0.3	-1.7	82		0.3	9.4
Middle Quintile	46.2	-491		11.1	792	0.3	2.6	-138		-0.3	15.6
Fourth Quintile	65.4	-903		6.6	862	0.7	8.2	-532		-0.6	18.8
Top Quintile	83.8	-8,641		5.2	1,569	3.1	94.4	-6,899		-2.3	23.4
All	42.4	-2,890		13.1	938	1.7	100.0	-1,064		-1.3	19.6
Addendum
80-90	75.2	-1,706		8.8	1,624	1.0	7.9	-1,143		-0.8	21.2
90-95	87.6	-3,075		2.8	1,255	1.6	8.7	-2,599		-1.2	22.0
95-99	96.7	-8,067		0.4	1,311	2.7	20.5	-7,477		-2.0	23.2
Top 1 Percent	99.1	-86,535		0.1	693	6.1	57.3	-82,188		-4.3	25.9
Top 0.1 Percent	99.9	-482,940		0.0	0	8.3	33.2	-464,005		-5.6	27.6
Source: Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center Microsimulation Model (version 0411-2).
Number of AMT Taxpayers (millions). Baseline: 6.1 Proposal: 5.8
* Less than 0.05
** Insufficient data
(1) Calendar year. Baseline is current policy, proposal implements Mitt Romney's tax plan. For a detailed discussion of TPC's interpretation of Romney's plan, see http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/Romney-plan.cfm. For a description of TPC's current law and current policy baselines, see
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/T11-0270
(2) Tax units with negative cash income are excluded from the lowest income class but are included in the totals. For a description of cash income, see
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxModel/income.cfm
(3) The cash income percentile classes used in this table are based on the income distribution for the entire population and contain an equal number of people, not tax units. The breaks are (in 2011 dollars): 20% $19,342; 40% $39,862; 60% $69,074; 80% $119,546; 90% $169,987; 95% $242,597; 99% $629,809; 99.9% $2,868,534.
(4) Includes both filing and non-filing units but excludes those that are dependents of other tax units.
(5) After-tax income is cash income less: individual income tax net of refundable credits; corporate income tax; payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare); and estate tax.
(6) Average federal tax (includes individual and corporate income tax, payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, and the estate tax) as a percentage of average cash

Romney's campaign focus & tax plans

02/01/12

CNN's Soledad O'Brien asked Romney about perceptions that he doesn't understand the needs of average Americans. In response, Romney said:

          “This is a time people are worried. They're frightened. They want someone who they have confidence in. And I believe I will be able to instill that confidence in the American people. And, by the way, I'm in this race because I care about Americans.  I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. 

          I'm not concerned about the very rich, they're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling and I'll continue to take that message across the nation.”

When O'Brien followed on Romney's I'm-not-concerned-about-the-very-poor comment, the presidential candidate responded:

          “The challenge right now – we will hear from the Democrat Party the plight of the poor, and – and there’s no question, it's not good being poor and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor. 

But my campaign is focused on middle income Americans. My campaign – you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich. That's not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That's not my focus.”

(In fact, according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, the largest benefits of Romney's tax plan go to the wealthy, not the middle class.)

Romney's comment about not being concerned about the poor is his latest statement that his rivals -- either Democratic or Republican -- could use to portray Romney as being out of touch with average Americans. Other examples: 

·        his $10,000 bet with Rick Perry (at December GOP debate)

·        "I like being able to fire people," even though he was referring to insurers (at speech in New Hampshire)

·        "There were a couple of times I wondered if I was going to get a pink slip" (during remarks in New Hampshire)

·        saying that questions about economic inequality are "about envy" (on "TODAY" back in January)

·        and the ultimate release of his 2010 tax returns, which showed him paying an effective tax rate of less than 15%.

Caveat lector--Wiki article about the Newt...

Eighty-four ethics charges were filed against Gingrich during his term as speaker. After extensive investigation and negotiation by the House Ethics Committee, Gingrich was sanctioned $300,000 by a 395–28 House vote. It was the first time in history a speaker was disciplined for ethical wrongdoing.[Yang, John E. (August 5, 1998). "House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker". The Washington Post: p. A1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/012297.htm.  ]

  In January 1997, Gingrich said "I did not manage the effort intensely enough to thoroughly direct or review information being submitted to the committee on my behalf. In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee, but I did not intend to mislead the committee."[ Clymer, Adam (December 22, 1996). "Panel Concludes Gingrich Violated Rules on Ethics". The New York Times] Most of the charges were dropped, in one case because there was no evidence that Gingrich was still violating, as of the time of the investigation, the rule that he was found to have violated in the past. [Anderson, Curt (October 11, 1998). "Ethics Committee Drops Last of 84 Charges Against Gingrich". The Washington Post. Associated Press. "The House ethics committee dropped the three remaining ethics charges against Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) yesterday, despite finding that Gingrich repeatedly violated one rule by using a political consultant to develop the Republican legislative agenda. The ethics panel decided to take no further action because there is no evidence that 'Rule 45' violations are continuing in the speaker's office, a post Gingrich has held since 1995."] The one charge not dropped was a charge of claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes. In addition, the House Ethics Committee concluded that inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented "intentional or ... reckless" disregard of House rules. ^[Yang, John E.; Dewar, Helen (January 18, 1997). "Ethics Panel Supports Reprimand of Gingrich". The Washington Post: p. A01. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/011897.htm. ]


  Special Counsel James M. Cole concluded that Gingrich violated federal tax law and had lied to the ethics panel in an effort to force the committee to dismiss the complaint against him. The full committee panel did not agree whether tax law had been violated and left that issue up to the IRS. ^[Yang, John E.; Dewar, Helen (January 18, 1997). "Ethics Panel Supports Reprimand of Gingrich". The Washington Post: p. A01. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/011897.htm. ] In 1999, the IRS cleared the organizations connected with the "Renewing American Civilization" courses under investigation for possible tax violations. [Rosenbaum, David E. (February 4, 1999). "I.R.S. Clears Foundation Linked to Gingrich's Ethics Dispute". The New York Times. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE7D61138F937A35751C0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1.  ]
According to notes written by Gingrich in 1993, which were included in the House report in 1997 and published by Slate in 2011, Gingrich had a 25-year plan. [Stanley, Tim (December 9, 2011). "According to his doodles, Newt Gingrich wants to bring civilisation to the dark continent of America". The Daily Telegraph. London. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100123087/according-to-his-doodles-newt-gingrich-wants-to-bring-civilisation-to-the-dark-continent-of-america/.]  As Gingrich's "primary mission", the notes list, "advocate of civilization", "definer of civilization", "teacher of the rules of civilization", "arouser of those who form civilization", "organizer of the pro-civilization activists", and "leader (possibly) of the civilizing forces".^{[ibid ]}According to the plan, Gingrich would write a series of books and make public appearances to present "Gingrich the historian applying the lessons of history to public life".^{[ibid ]}