Mike Rowse A voice from New Mexico

It’s just a shell game

Obama promised the government will do everything in it's power to bring manufacturing jobs to America. While he and I may disagree on the government's ability to do just that effectively and efficiently, there is a way the government can help American businesses. When the government makes purchases, especially military equipment, they can help keep jobs in America or not. Now by no means am I suggesting we buy inferior equipment for our military just to keep jobs in America but if possible shouldn't sensitive military equipment be made in the U.S.?

The Pentagon has approved the purchase of a light attack aircraft for the U. S. military. The contract was awarded to Sierra Nevada Corp, an American company. But most of the work of building the plane is going to be done in Brazil by Embraer. Building the plane will create an estimated 1400 jobs, all but 50 of them will be in Brazil. Where was Obama on this one?

Hawker Beechcraft Corp has filed a lawsuit saying their company was not allowed to present a bid for the contract. They had competed by creating the AT-6 aircraft which was tested by USAF pilots and received very favorable reviews. But when it was time to bid on the project, HBC was denied the opportunity. HBC claims they would have manufactured the plane in their Kansas facility. That's a full 1400 jobs for the middle class in America. Why was HBC denied the opportunity to bid on the contract? Maybe because they don't hire enough union workers? Maybe because they donated to Republican politicians more than Democrats? Who knows; maybe it's because George Soros owns part of Embraer. How can Obama stand in front of America, claim he wants to create American jobs and punish companies who outsource to other countries but he continues to do just that... maybe he's gotten so used to lying that he doesn't know the difference anymore.

Another lie?

Warren Buffet claimed he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary; Obama has picked up that football and run with it. The Liar in Chief even invited Buffet's secretary to take a seat next to Michelle Obama during the SOTU address earlier this week. In his trip after the SOTU the LIC made the claim again "Warren Buffet's secretary is subject to a lower tax rate than his secretary." That is an outright lie.

Everyone is subject to the same tax rates. Warren Buffet is famous for giving his employees stock options. It is not a stretch to think Debbie Bosanke has received stock options. She and Buffet would both be subject to the 15% tax rate for capital gains; the same rate for dividends. Certainly both Buffet and Bosanke take a salary as well. Both are subject to the same tax rate depending upon the amount of salary they make. The best estimate is that Bosanke makes between $200-500K annually. She is subject to 19% tax rate at that level of income. If she makes between $100-200K she is at 12%. Buffet is probably making more in annual salary and thus is subject to a higher tax rate than his secretary.

If neither pays the rate it's because he or she is taking deductions that are allowed by law to reduce the taxable income. Except possibly for Buffet who is fighting the IRS in court of an estimated $1 billion tax liability he owes the IRS. To say Bosanke is subject to a lower tax rate is an outright lie. Bosanke likely earns more of her income from salary than investments compared to Buffet. If Buffet earns any of his income from a salary, then they are subject to the same rate and it's likely he is paying a higher rate. But why let a few facts get in the way of a good political story?

So, Romneycare is not Obamacare?

The people over at Thinkprogress.org have done a comparison that I think even Obama could understand. It compares Romneycare to Obamacare given that Romney continues to say that his universal health insurance plan is NOTHING like Glorious Leader's universal health insurance plan. So let's take a look shall we?

Romneycare creates a new individual insurance marketplace, called the "Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector", to offer polices to consumers. Obamacare creates a new individual insurance marketplace, called "exchanges", to offer polices to consumers.

Romneycare authorizes "tiers" of insurance coverage, which are called Gold, Silver, Bronze and Young Adult. Obamacare sets the following tiers for policies: Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze and Young Adult.

Romneycare limits the factors insurers can use, such as health status and gender to vary premiums. Obamacare limits the factors insurers can use, such as health status and gender, to vary premiums.

Romney care calls for the State's Connector to specify which benefits must be included in health plans. Obamacare requires the Secretary of the DOHHS to define "essential health benefits" which must be included in health plans.

Romneycare creates a marketplace for small employers allowing them to make apples to apples comparisons of plans and benefits and providing savings by reducing administrative costs. Obamacare creates a marketplace for small employers allowing them to make apples to apples comparisons of plans and benefits and providing savings by reducing administrative costs.

The analysis goes on at thinkprogress.org. But you get the idea. Romney wants to change Obamacare to be more like Romneycare. I think that's a promise that will be so easy to accomplish he might just be able to keep it.

He really lives in his own world doesn’t he?

I'll admit that I did not watch the entire speech. I tried to, honestly I did and I made it to just over 20 minutes but the divisive rhetoric and outright lies just made it too much to stomach. I turned to Animal Planet and watched some snow leopards kill some mountain goats. It was much more soothing and calming. I was happy.

It didn't take long for Glorious Leader or Liar in Chief to begin revealing his fantasy world. He claims America has never been more respected around the world than now, ostensibly because of his foreign policies. Really? Is that why Iran has openly flouted the American led effort to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. Why Iran is blocking the Strait of Hormuz and openly providing arms to Syria so President Assad can slaughter his 'subjects'? Why Saudi Arabia and several other allies in the Middle East are openly seeking defensive missile systems so they can protect themselves. Why Egypt, Libya, Irag and even Afghanistan are being controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood and other allies of al Qaeda? Yes the world is in turmoil and no the Taliban is not broken as the LIC claims; that's why we are negotiating with them, because they still have power and still control significant parts of not only Afghanistan but also Pakistan. Yeah, we are well respected.

3 million jobs added since he took office was another claim made by the Liar in Chief. Why does his own Labor Department and Bureau of Statistics show that we have a net loss of jobs since he took office of over 2 million workers. No one can say that he's added 3 million jobs because it's just not true. But he's moved from the 'saved or created' mantra because it had worn out. Even the Associated Press didn't buy a lot of his claims; the news service released an analysis that long and critical of the President's claims.

I warned you yesterday that he would claim to want everyone to be on a level playing field; but then in the next breath he starts calling for tax breaks for some and penalties for others; for the rich to pay more than the rest of us. Envy and greed are not principles on which to build your life; it only breeds poverty and misery for all. Maybe if the Liar in Chief would take an honest look at why corporations sent manufacturing operations to other countries; because of onerous unnecessary regulations; an anti-business environment; AND what's this about domestic energy?! Really?! Do we need to go over that again?

The simple fact is this; Obama lied about what he has accomplished and about the state of our economy and our nation. You know why? Because he knows that most people will believe what he says; he believes you are too lazy, something he's said himself several times, to go and check the facts. He knows the MSM will not call him out loudly. A few might but their voices will be drowned out in the cacophony. He knows he can lie and get away with it. That's sad.

As you watch the SOTU speech tonight…

As usual, with any President I might add, Glorious Leader's staff are leaking parts of his State of the Union Speech. Don't be surprised if some things change based upon the response his staff sees in the press. But if he sticks to his anticipated message or theme, remember a few things as he talks about his accomplishments and goals. It's easy to move the target after you fail to achieve the goal you set for yourself. He will, for example, claim credit for saving us from a much worse economic disaster because he has not been able to achieve his stated goals; such as keeping unemployment under 8%; so he'll say he created or saved millions of jobs.

Three years ago Obama said he would create 3.5 million jobs in the next two years. He also claimed he would double the nation's supply of renewable energy in the same time frame. "we also have made the largest investment in basic research funding in American history — an investment that will spur not only new discoveries in energy, breakthroughs in science, medicine and technology... We will soon lay down thousands of miles of power lines that can carry new energy to cities and towns around the country."

Never mind I guess that the economy had a net loss of more than 2 million jobs over those 2 years; that the only reason the unemployment rate is down to 8.5% is because so many people have stopped looking for work and are no longer counted; there has not been a boom in renewable energy or the creation of new power lines. Instead we have Solyndra and Evergreen and a dozen other examples of failed renewable energy companies; don't forget the investors who didn't lose a dime but the loss was carried by the American taxpayer instead.

Despite the historical evidence Obama believed that $1 in government spending would create $1.50 in higher GDP; yet GDP has not increased anywhere close to that amount. So what is a President to do when by his own admission things aren't going as well as planned? Besides of course changing the goals. No, he'll now focus on fairness, the divvying up of the pie that he assumes will never grow; despite historical evidence that wealth grows consistently.

GL will espouse his view of an America where everyone gets a fair shot, does their fair share and plays by the same set of rules. Haven't we heard that before? But if he wants us all to play by the same rules, why are there tax deductions for some and not for others? Why are there different tax rates for different tax payers? Let's not forget GL's waivers for Obamacare, that don't apply to everyone but apply more to his cronies, like unions and big donors. Doesn't this lead to a changing standard of fairness depending upon the whim of one man? We could go on; like the money being 'loaned' to Colombia, Brazil and George Soros' companies to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico but the denying of drilling permits to U.S. companies or the Keystone pipeline; all of which would create millions of jobs; then GL wouldn't have to creatively move the goals...

Just remember all those promises of transparency; closing of Guantanamo; let's see how he changes course, blames everyone else; and last but not least remember how he has ignored the recommendations of his own, hand picked budget commission, jobs commission and his defense advisors... you 'member!

The MSM will spin this

Romney released his tax returns and a quick analysis shows that he pays pretty much what he should be paying according to the tax codes. For the years 2010 and 2011 Romney will pay $6.2 million in taxes on $42.5 million in income. The effective tax rate in 2010 was 13.9% and it will be 15.4% for 2011. Romney's tax rate is below the 35% of most wage earners because he derives most of his income from investments and capital gains; which under U.S. tax codes is taxed at a lower rate.

Before you cry foul think about this; Romney did not set the tax rates so he's paying what he's supposed to be paying, but his effective tax rate is actually much higher. Remember the income he earns from his investments is taxed when earned by the corporation before it is passed on to the investor. Thus the corporation is paying a 30% tax and then Romney or any other investor is paying an additional 15% on that income; the effective tax rate is thus 40%.

Romney and his wife also gave $7 million to charity over the same two year period. How much did John Kerry give to charity or the Obama family for that matter? Not that much in their lifetimes...

Quick hits

Scientists say a huge coronal mass ejection has spewed a cloud of solar radiation in our direction; it should hit us around 9 a.m. EST today. This is the largest such storm in 7 years or so; flights are being rerouted away from the north pole; contingencies are being made for power outages. No one is predicting widespread disaster, yet. But this particular area of the sun, area 1492 or something like that, has become increasingly volatile of the past few months and has begun spewing more solar radiation... I'm not saying the Mayans were right, but... it does make you think.

A new study has analyzed the disposable income of someone making minimum wage and someone making $60,000 a year. If both are supporting a family of four and you calculate earned income along with taxes paid, benefits received (such as food stamps, free school lunch; medicaid and CHIP, rent subsidy & so on) the person making $14,500 a year ends up with $37,777 in total economic benefit while a person making $60,000 a year has $34,366 in disposable income. A person making just $3625 a year has $31,630 a year in DI. The one thing that isn't counted in the analysis is Social Security Supplemental Income. Add in $8,088 if any of the family members is considered lacking in the cultural and educational skills needed to be employable and you could increase that DI. And that's per person...

Juan Williams, Chris Matthews, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and so many others accused Newt of being racist when he made his comment about so many people being on food stamps and they have been beating that drum consistently since then. Newt never said anything about blacks being on food stamps in the original statement so why did Juan, Chris, Debbie and the others just assume that he was talking about blacks? Why did they just assume that more blacks were receiving food stamps? Numbers show that more whites are actually receiving food stamps than blacks. Isn't the assumption being made by the left actually racist?