In light of the bleak unemployment numbers and economic outlook, Heritage scholars James Sherk and J.D. Foster pointed out the following:


Yet an anti-growth tax & spend frenzy is exactly what Team Obama has in mind. The President proposes to raise taxes significantly on upper-income families and small businesses by raising income tax rates on ordinary income, increasing tax rates on dividends and capital gains, preserving the death tax at onerous levels, restoring the previous phase-outs of the itemized deduction and personal exemptions, and creating a new cap on the rate at which individuals can deduct itemized deductions.

Obama's budget represents a 25% spending increase which marks the largest non-war government expansion since the New Deal. The Obama budget leaves permanent deficits averaging $600 billion even after the economy recovers and doubles the publicly held national debt to over $15 trillion ($12.5 trillion in 2009 dollars).


And for those who would accuse the Republicans of merely playing politics while failing to provide a plan of their own, you should note that there are now two 10-year budget plans being offered in Washington. The Obama budget raises taxes by $1.4 trillion; the conservative Alternative avoids all tax increases and even simplifies the tax code.

Ah the beauty of capitalism... and the hope for a stock (umm my stock) that has been scorned.

Here's the deal, when your competitors have hobbled themselves by taking bailout money and letting the government run their businesses, just stay focused on the big picture: make a profit by selling cars that people want to buy. The government can wish for a market for green econoboxes, but they can't make people buy them. Not yet at least. If you sell the only product people want, you will make a killing. Ford got an important boost from news that it had significantly bolstered its balance sheet by slashing its debt by 28%, equal to $9.9 billion, through an exchange of old debt for cash and equity, without any help from the federal government. The news sent shares of American auto maker soaring 16 percent Monday.

Ford's 28% reduction in its overall debt comes as General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC have failed to make significant progress in their discussions with bondholders and lenders. Both car maker are trying to shave significant debt obligations in coming weeks to meet the Obama administration's demand for a major reorganization in exchange for continuing federal support.

Because of the success of the effort, Ford will be able to slash its annual interest payments by more than $500 million. That will also enhance Ford’s ability to survive without resorting to federal loans. Some Wall Street types like Ford's grit.

The debt deal may have changed the minds of some on Wall Street, who had questioned whether Ford could avoid government loans.

J.P. Morgan auto analyst Himanshu Patel wrote in an investor note Monday that the debt restructuring may be a sign that Ford management "believes car sales have bottomed and faith in its own ability to execute" its plan without government aid.

The debt buyback is another example of how Ford has capitalized on government requirements imposed on GM and Chrysler to reach deals with stakeholders.

Ford has also been the first automaker to reduce its debt and modify its contract with the United Auto Workers union to cut costs. In addition to eliminating bonuses and cost-of-living increases for workers, Ford also agreed to make up to 50 percent of payments to a union-run trust for retiree health care benefits in stock instead of cash.

The effort demonstrates, yet again, how Ford restructuring is progressing quickly. It's also called making your competitors (and your government) pay for their mistakes.

Hat tip: Patriot Room

The Chronicle of Philanthropy also has a comprehensive article which illustrates the deduction reduction with this example: if you make more than $250,000 a year, and you were to give a charity a gift of $100,000, you would save $28,000 on your taxes under the Obama proposal, rather than the $35,000 you save now. Experts at the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy estimate it could cause giving to drop by several billion dollars a year.

As Mary Kate Cary notes, there's something bigger than a reserve fund at stake here: shifting our funding priorities from the private sector to the public sector. Do we want to encourage fewer donations to charity in favor of higher taxes to fund more government programs?

Presented as a comprehensive energy bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 offers nothing more than subsidies and mandates for unsuccessful, unproven energy sources coupled with taxes on reliable energy sources that falsely claim to stimulate the economy by investing in clean technology and creating green jobs. This government-centric approach will destroy jobs and drive up energy prices for years to come.

Remember: The science behind global warming is anything but conclusive. Many leading climatologists conclude that climate models aren’t incredibly accurate and even have different opinions (for instance whether it is the sun or oceanic changes) as to what the dominant causes are of global warming and cooling. As retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John Theon told the Senate’s Environment and Public Works minority subcommittee, climate modeling is flawed and as such there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy. Especially in light of current economic conditions.

Exiting Notes to Ponder:
Even Obama admits Cap & Trade will cause electricity rates to skyrocket
Global sea ice levels are the same as 1979. In fact the rate of ice increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.
Alaskan Sea Glaciers are advancing for the first time in 250 years.
For the second straight year the Earth is, in fact, cooling... not warming
Tropical Cyclone Activity Lowest in 30 Years

First it was the box set of DVDs to PM Brown unusable on a European DVD player. And then only after realizing the media firestorm the cheap gift caused in the UK did the Obama White House scramble to assure the Brits that he meant no disrespect.

Yet, apparently they didn't learn their lesson.

Before the G-20 summit officially began with a dinner for the heads of state, President Obama spent the day hard at work, attempting to build a united approach to tackle the global economic crisis and forge relationships with foreign leaders. How do you do that? By giving Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II a video iPod. Not just any old iPod mind you, but a video iPod, so at least he didn't give her the free Shuffle he got with his MacBook Pro. Only the best for a monarch!

So what does one upload to a royal iPod? Why your own speeches of course!

• Photos from the Queen's 2007 White House State Visit
• Photos from the Queen's 2007 Jamestown, Va., Visit
• Photos from the Queen's 2007 Richmond, Va., Visit
• Video from the Queen's 1957 Jamestown Visit
• Video from the Queen's 2007 Jamestown Visit
• Video from the Queen's 2007 Richmond Visit
• Photos from President Obama's Inauguration
• Audio of then-state senator Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and
• Audio of President Obama 2009 Inauguration Address

As the crew over at Weekly Standard notes, imagine if Ronald Reagan had given Margaret Thatcher a mix tape, the outside of which was inscribed in his own handwriting, "Down with Tyranny Tour, 1964-1988," featuring such hits as the fiery "A Time for Choosing," the defiant "Tear Down this Wall," and of course, "The Boys of Pointe du Hoc," which we all know is the diplomatic mix-tape equivalent of Journey's "Faithfully." He didn't do that 1) because you don't give mix tapes to other women when you're married or over 14, for that matter 2) because Maggie would have undoubtedly lost her crumpets in his general vicinity at the gesture, and 3) because he was not a more-than-mildly self-important rookie without a protocol staff.

Apparently, being newly crowned American royalty doesn't automatically impart upon one the the grace to interact with actual royalty.

From our "boom goes the dynamite" files... Neil Cavuto had another quality nuclear moment as he hits Rep. Grayson (D) for trying to regulate "excessive" pay.

Fear not, says Rep. Grayson, author of the “pay for performance” bill. He only wants to cap the pay of employees at companies that got TARP money. Left unmentioned is the fact that Barney Frank’s goals are a slightly more ambitious than Grayson's current legislation. This is the camel’s nose inside the tent, and Cavuto knows it.

Perhaps the best quote from the grilling session:

"The Constitution never gave you the damn authority of telling anyone what they should make... The Constitution never gave you the authority to blythely come in here and arrogantly set pay for people you don't even know. And, you don't have the guts to come back at me and tell me what you think adequate pay range is."



Grayson and Frank's attempts to regulate "excessive" pay is based on nothing more than misunderstandings about the role of corporate executives in the economy and the vigorous competition that exists for these highly skilled leaders.

Evidence indicates that the market based and competitive executive pay model is highly effective. The private sector should continue to refine best practices to sustain this effectiveness while continuing to identify specific shortcomings that companies can address on their own accord. At the vast majority of companies boards work hard to determine the right mix of executive incentives in order to achieve maximum performance for shareholders.

This model has generaged vast amounts of wealth for the American public and would be seriously damaged if we allow government to restrict or eliminate the system of risks and rewards that attracts talented executives and pays them to make the right decisions on a sustained basis.


Hat tip: Hotair.com

When asked what he would say to his team before the biggest game of the season, Steelers coach Mike Tomlin noted that whatever it was going to be, it wouldn't be rehearsed.

"I make a conscious effort to wing it. I think that's real. I think our guys relate to that," he said. "It's that way that I deal with them, for the most part. This week has been tougher than most in terms of trying to keep those thoughts out of my mind because there's a lot to say. But at the same time, I'm intent on doing that (winging it). I'm going to just walk in and communicate with them like I always do. I never prepare for the night-before-the-game speech."

What Coach Tomlin is describing is his value for "authentic communication," which has been defined as "speaking from your heart from the highest regions of the mind and from the depths of the soul."

Unfortunately we as Republicans have often failed to communicate and engage the public in a sincere and meaningful way. At times our message has lacked a passionate authenticity that resonates with the hearts and minds of our friends and neighbors.

To paraphrase Todd Herman, we have not consistently and meaningfully artculated why the founding values of our state and nation, among them -the revolutionary recognition that God granted people inalienable rights, a limited government which administers to the affairs of the people at whose pleasure it serves, understandable laws which apply equally to all people, a vital defense used judiciously and reluctantly, and reliance-on-self and generous charity by choice- are still the guideposts for liberty, fairness and access to success for every American.

We believe that conservative ideas in economic and social policy produce a stronger and more just society. Yet as Ron Nehring has said, we cannot rely solely upon the correctness of our ideas in order to win the policy battles of the new century. To win, we must place new emphasis on organizing ourselves and persuasively, authentically communicating our proposals in a competitive marketplace of ideas.

As this author writes: "Communicating authentically is not an easy task. At times, authentic communication feels like risk and takes courage. It reflects your experience, not an absolute reality."

The Onus, is upon us: we must authentically and courageously communicate how a reasonable level of self-reliance, the expectation that one works for what one needs and wants and, the resulting sufficiency-of-self will, in fact, allow us to be a more free and more charitable people.