Archive for January, 2012

Obama’s Class Warfare Destroyed By IRS Numbers

Monday, January 30th, 2012

Steven Birn
Steven Birn Speaks

President Obama’s first campaign speech of the year, the State of the Union, was the opening of what will be a 10 month class war.

Obama demands that the rich “pay their fair share.” He trots out Warren Buffet’s secretary, claiming she pays a higher tax rate than her boss. First, we should recognize that tax rate and amount paid are two different things. Second, we should recognize that Buffet earns most of his money as capital gains. The capital gains rate is 15%. The IRS reports that 97% of Americans pay less than 15% in income tax. Meaning that if Buffet’s secretary actually pays a higher rate than her boss, she’s likely earning in excess of $200,000.

If one were to listen to Obama one would believe that there are hoards of billionaires running around the country screwing the rest of us out of what’s “rightfully” ours. Unfortunately the IRS data suggests something quite different. 2009 is the most recent year of IRS data available. There were only 8.274 Americans who had income over $10 million. (see table 1.1, 2009) Those people had total income of $240 billion. So even if the government were to tax these people at 100%, the truth is that it wouldn’t fund the government a whole month. Mind you we have a Federal budget that is almost $4 trillion. Currently this group pays $6 million in income tax a piece, totaling around $50 billion. Obama wants to double that (assuming everyone is only paying capital gains) to $100 billion. That won’t even pay for a week of the Federal government’s budget.

In fact, if we taxed people earning over $1 million at a rate of 100% the Federal government would only take in $726 billion in tax revenue. That doesn’t even pay for the Federal government at current spending rates for 3 months. Keep in mind we’re talking about taxing at 100%. Obama is talking about raising taxes on these people from 15 to 30% assuming these folks are earning all of their money from capital gains, which we know many on the lower end are not.

The amount of revenue raised via Obama’s proposed tax increase is peanuts compared to the size of the Federal budget and the Federal deficit. Let’s say the government manages to take $100 billion in additional revenue based on Obama’s tax increases. That will reduce the budget deficit from $1.4 trillion to $1.2 trillion. The havoc it would create in the market though would be much greater. Faced with the inability to earn a fair return on an investment, people with money to invest will be less likely to take risks. After all, if there is a limited reward for risk taking most people won’t take the risk. It will be good for low risk investments but bad for the sort of high risk investments that move the economy forward.

In other words, Obama’s proposed tax increase will do nothing for the budget deficit but will substantially harm the economy. Thankfully it has no chance of passing because the House Republicans won’t even consider such a bill. That is however exactly what Obama wants. Remember, this is a class war battle Obama is waging. He’s pretending like there are billionaires out there not “paying their fair share” when in reality they are already. Half the people in this country don’t pay income taxes, those making over $200,000 pay the vast majority. The hoards of billionaires out there not paying “their fair share” simply don’t exist based on the IRS data.

Truth has never mattered to the Obama administration. It’s going to be up to the Republican nominee, presumably Romney, to present the truth to the American people. So far Romney hasn’t done it. We can only hope he takes on Obama head on over this stuff. Tax increases on the rich simply won’t bring in revenue sufficient for cutting the deficit. Furthermore, the harm that increased taxes will cause far outweigh the potential minor benefits. Class warfare cannot be allowed to win.


Steven Birn is an attorney and conservative political junkie and blogger. For more news and commentary visit Steven Birn Speaks.

Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.

The Buffett Rule and Paying a ‘Fair Share’

Monday, January 30th, 2012

Michael Fields
Political Realities

Much has been made in the days following Obama’s State of the Union speech about the presence of Warren Buffett’s secretary alongside Michelle Obama, and the president’s support for a minimum tax rate on millionaires.

Warren Buffett's secretary, Debbie Bosanek, sat in First Lady Michelle Obama's box and was mentioned in the State of the Union address, though not by name, by the President. She's just over the First Lady's left shoulder, wearing glasses.

The so-called Buffett Rule would require individuals with an income above $1 million per year to pay a minimum tax rate on their income of 30%. This, Buffett and the president say, is only fair. I think that blanket statement is wrong and can damage the economy; but I think there is a basis of truth and logic in thinking there are elements of the current tax laws for millionaires that are unfair and leave them paying less than a reasonable tax rate on certain income.

The most simplistic approach to thinking about tax rates is this: if I bust my butt every day to earn enough money to house, feed, clothe, and generally care for family why should I be paying a much higher tax rate than a retired multimillionaire couch potato clipping bond coupons and earning dividends? There are several answers to this question that dispel this thinking but there is also some truth to the accusation. Dividends are payments from corporations to shareholders – after-tax payments. In other words, corporations pay taxes on their income (presumably) and the remaining money can then be allocated to shareholders as a dividend. Taxing that dividend distribution amounts to double taxation and this is the basis for the argument to eliminate taxes on dividends or, at least, keep them at levels substantially below income tax rates. I support this view and think dividend income should be kept at current 15% levels. Unfortunately, this changes at the end of 2012 when dividends will revert to being taxed at regular income tax levels.

The other big income item for wealthy hedge fund managers and investors is capital gains taxes. These too are at 15% for long term holdings of greater than 1 year (the rate increases to 20% at the end of this year) and keep taxes down for the wealthy. This I find troubling and believe there is ample room for a more nuanced approach. From my perspective there is a HUGE difference between buying IBM stock and making money on the investment versus investing money in a budding company and making money if the company succeeds. Buying the stock of an established company on a listed stock exchange is hardly the same as providing vital capital for a new and growing company. I’d have no problem seeing the gains on the IBM stock trade taxed at regular income tax levels while the gains on venture capital investment are taxed at substantially lower levels (if not at zero). Of course introducing such a dramatic change in tax rates on listed stock capital gains would be an immediate disaster for the stock market so it would require a very long period of introduction – even 10-20 years of slow, deliberate rate hikes which would undoubtedly be changed by future Congress… such is our political system.

Hedge funds are generally created to trade actively, earn excessive gains, and provide investors with outsized returns. In general, they provide no marginal benefit to society, they create no new businesses, no new jobs, no anything except inordinate income for successful managers and investors. And yet both the managers and the investors get incredible tax breaks. The gains are very often long-term so the returns to investors are taxed at 15%. The managers, who invest nothing but get paid out a percentage of the profits generated by their investing prowess, also pay only 15% on their take of the profits. They get a tax break called “carried interest” that effectively says they are earning income based on risk-capital (even though it isn’t their capital at risk) so the income they receive should be taxed the same as the investors. This is sheer lunacy. That is income, pure and simple. It’s no different from the bonuses received by Wall Street traders and those bonuses are taxed as regular income. This is really a pet peeve of mine – drives me absolutely nuts.

The Democrats continual harping on the “fair share” language seems to be resonating with a lot of Americans. In poll after poll 70-75% of respondents support an increase in the tax rates of the wealthiest Americans – pretty easy to say “yeah, tax the rich guy more.” But that’s a resounding majority and I admit I’m surprised that few conservatives support the measure since “we the people” have clearly spoken in those polls. I’m equally surprised that there isn’t a greater hue and cry over the Dems chosen method of tax breaks to stimulate the economy – a “temporary” reduction in Social Security taxes. Of course it’s a clever method to choose since it’s extremely progressive (the rich get relatively little as a percentage of income and Warren Buffett gets nothing while his secretary gets her full share) but it does nothing for the elderly and unemployed and it leaves a growing hole in the Social Security fund that will need to be made up for later. Why not reduce SS taxes for only the lowest income earners and reduce tax rates .25% for low and middle income tax brackets. Too much class warfare there if we don’t do it for the rich too? I don’t think so – the rich aren’t stupid enough to make an issue about not sharing in a fractionally lower tax rate at a time when there is a potentially monumental tax rate increase in their future.

All the noise out there right now over “fair share”, class warfare, the 99%, and “we the people” strikes me as totally misplaced and directionless. They blunt the real argument — that Obama and Congress have failed by caving in to the demands of the loudest and most partisan elements of their parties. Obama failed miserably by ignoring Simpson-Bowles because it contained a few items that would offend some of his constituents. And then he failed to introduce any plan that would address meaningfully our deteriorating financial picture. The GOP failed miserably by fawning over Grover Norquist and drawing an ill-advised line in the sand against any and all tax increases. It’s sad that not a single GOP presidential candidate was willing to accept even a $1 tax increase for every $10 in spending cuts. Seriously? Conservatives wouldn’t accept a $500 billion tax increase combining higher rates on the wealthy and the elimination of tax disparities if it was accompanied by $5 trillion in spending cuts where the timing of both were well matched? How do we make progress when both sides have taken such strict positions?

There is some rumbling about introducing Simpson-Bowles as a bill in the Senate. It may pass a majority but either way it will go nowhere in the House. Still, it would be good to see a truly bipartisan plan get some airtime so the American people see who wants to act and who wants to play politics. Congress’ approval rating is in single digits and it’s time we saw who are the people’s representatives and who are the pure politicians…and then let’s throw the bums out.


For news and commentary that strives to recognize the reality of politics, visit Political Realities.

Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.

The Dark Side of Mitt Romney

Monday, January 30th, 2012

Two articles by the American Free Press on Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s political inconsistencies and shady business acumen.

Pat Shannan
American Free Press

Mitt Romney: Chameleon in a Three-Piece Suit

Amidst the media muckraking, Mitt Romney still seems to be “anointed” by the hidden powers, the South Carolina surge by Newt Gingrich notwithstanding, causing many to examine the constant flip-flopping of the former liberal Massachusetts governor now posing as a conservative presidential candidate.

TV comic Stephen Colbert made a direct hit when he quipped the day before the Palmetto State primary that “The only difference between Mitt Romney and a statue of Mitt Romney is that a statue never changes its position.” One New York newspaper said, “Romney cannot decide who he is.”

Both summations are accurate. An outspoken “pro-lifer,” Romney and his wife have been financial supporters of the pro-choice Planned Parenthood that supports abortion clinics nationwide.

When he ran for the Senate against Ted Kennedy in 1994, Romney supported “full equality” for gays and lesbians, a pledge that won him support from homosexual Republicans. But 12 years later, when going up against Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for the Republican presidential nomination, Romney’s record was clear on the subject: He had become an opponent of gay marriage. In 1994, Romney had opposed the federal marriage amendment but in 2007 supported it.

Romney supported “assault weapon” bans and the Brady Bill, and as late as 2002 was in favor of gun confiscation laws in Massachusetts. But in 2011, obviously romancing America’s conservative vote, Mitt joined the NRA prior to announcing his current candidacy.

In the case of illegal immigration, Romney has spoken both “for” and “against” it so often that news commentators realized his drift was determined by that day’s podium location.

Similar to the attitude of Democrats who want to scream “racist” whenever one points out Barack Obama’s shortcomings, Romney backers are quick to say that anyone who doesn’t like Romney must be “anti-Mormon.”

The Salt Lake City connection to the president that should concern all Americans the most is the blood oath vows taken by devout Mormons such as Romney professes to be. These are of a higher priority than the presidential oaths (or any other) because the taker has sworn to follow the instructions of his church leaders under penalty of death, according to a former high-ranking Latter Day Saints member now a Christian minister.

A vocal critic of the “cesspool of pornography,” Romney did nothing for the nine years he sat on the board of directors while Marriott Hotels made millions from showing porno movies on hotel TVs.

Here Romney’s cagey reticence could be tied to his relationship to Chicago’s billionaire Crown family, which became rich as “war profiteers” in WWII and every war since. The Crown family is also reported to have earned a large part of its fortune in recent years from the pornography industry. Notorious for supporting both opposing party candidates, Susan Crown, granddaughter of the company’s founder, has been supporting Barack Obama since 2003 and is now investing in Romney because of his willingness to wage war in the Middle East for Israel.

All of these facts and rumors aside, Romney’s appointment of Michael Chertoff as head of his Counter-terrorism and Intelligence Advisory Committee should be all the information Americans need, to be aware of this candidate’s loyalty to the New World Order. Chertoff, as head of the criminal division of the Department of Justice, oversaw the FBI cover-up of 9-11 and the disposal of evidence refuting the government’s false version of what happened on 9-11.

Ralph Forbes
American Free Press

Romney Is Wall Street’s Ace in the Hole

Mitt Romney, the iconic symbol of “American capitalism,” has proved to be nothing but a Barbie’s blow-up Ken doll for the perverted plutocrats on Wall Street. Romney is a disciple of the “Greed is Good Gurus.” He followed in the footsteps of the infamous Ivan Boesky, the Wall Street crook who plundered U.S. free enterprises in the 1970s and 1980s. “Ivan the Terrible” was a role model, not only for Romney, but the fictional corporate raider Gordon Gekko, who said: “I am not a destroyer of companies. I am a liberator.”

Mitt needed $300 million to take over two Texas department-store chains, Bealls and Palais Royal, to form Specialty Retailers, Inc. Bain Capital made a $175 million profit. Romney sold out just before disaster struck. The Bain-“rescued” department-store company went bankrupt—drowning in $600 million of debt.

GS Industries Inc. is another Romney “success.” The steel manufacturer had been solid for a century, employing generations of Americans—until Bain cut more than 1,750 jobs—and sank it into bankruptcy. When Bain took it over, it had $1 billion in revenue and employed 3,800 people worldwide as the largest producer of carbon wire rods in North America. Bain Capital used $24.5 million to get GS Industries. In seven years Bain took $58.4million profits and annual management fees of about $900,000—plus multimillion-dollar dividends.

Republican President Dwight Eisenhower warned America to beware of the military-industrial complex—but the internationalists who hijacked the Republican Party want untold billions for $400 toilet seats—but not one cent to protect American workers.

No wonder the Wall Street banksters are Romney’s top donors: Goldman Sachs—$367,200; Credit Suisse Group—$203,750; Morgan Stanley—$199,800; HIG Capital—$186,500; Barclays—$157,750; Kirkland & Ellis—$132,100; Bank of America—$126,500; PriceWaterhouseCoopers—$118,250; EMC Corp.—$117,300; JPMorgan Chase & Co.—$112,250; Bain Capital—$74,500; UBS AG—$73,750; Wells Fargo—$61,500; Blackstone Group—$59,800; Citigroup Inc.—$57,050; as of last report Romney filed with the FEC.

This is just chickenfeed for Romney and his ilk, who dismiss $374,327 in speaking fees as “not very much.” The real money is hidden in “super-PACs” because corporations have more rights than people—“of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.” Orwell was right. The pigs are rewriting the law of the land.


For more no-nonsense, uncensored, and independent news like this, visit American Free Press online.

Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.

Dreams Fading in America and Europe Part 2

Monday, January 30th, 2012

By Bob Chapman
TheInternationalForecaster.com

The world is waiting with bated breath for the US and its allies to attack Iran. We said this is a game and that the US is not logistically prepared for an Iran invasion. That we said will come in a year or more. Beating the war drums is not the same as war. The propaganda has been spewing forth for a month in order to relieve pressure on European financial problems simple misdirection and misinformation.

We believe part of this game is the result of Iran selling oil in other currencies over the past two years. The basis for the dollar’s strength is the petro dollar and if that grip is broken the US dollar will be in serious trouble. Being a corporatist, fascist dictatorial state allows the US to unilaterally do as it pleases. Financial sanctions on Iran will not work because they have powerful partners working with them, such as Russia, China, Japan and India. As far as others are concerned those who were beaten into submission by the State Department, we wonder where they will get their oil after the embargo is lifted? Actions bring consequences. A consequence of which can be pointed out in a recent agreement between China and Japan to deal in their own currencies, rather than in US dollars in trade settlement. The dethroning of the US petro-dollar is in process. The elitists in NYC and London are finding out Iran is no pushover as was Iraq and Libya. The US is never your friend and it is all about money and power. As a result the Japanese are buying Chinese bonds, which makes the agreement more significant. Over time the US dollar will lose its preeminent position and then finally the US will implement trade tariffs to finally stop the massive exodus of jobs and companies from the US. An important result as well will be the strengthening of the yen and yuan versus the dollar. If the euro fades from the scene it will make the yen and yuan more important. Without a euro the US dollar will be under intense pressure. For some time the euro has acted as blocker and cover for the dollar and that luxury is coming to an end. You just saw US backstage action in the form of grading house downgrades to make the euro the negative highlight. Those raters are all in the pocket of the City of London Wall Street and the Fed. That to us explains the timing and tells us they want the euro and Greek problems to go on as long as possible. These elitists could care less about the future credibility of S&P, Moody’s and Fitch. All they care about is immediate results. These same agencies gave AAA ratings to mortgage securities that were Triple B. The court said they made a mistake – a $4 trillion mistake? You have to be kidding us. The game is rigged and has been for a long, long time.

It is Monday and as we write the big financial meeting is being held in Europe. The proposals as we understand them are already set in stone. Greece will issue a new 30-year bond, initially paying 3.10%, which would rise over time to 4.75%. they call this an orderly default, as implemented in Argentina 10-years ago.

In addition a fiscal, ESM, pact will be implemented taking over each state’s budget and spending. That pact would eliminate state sovereignty. There would still be fines or controls for those states that broke the rules.

The World Bank disclosed last week that it was lowering world GDP growth rates from 3.6% to 2.5%. High-income nations fell from 2.7% to 1.4%, which for the US would be 1-1/2% to 2%, which we changed our figures to three weeks ago. The Bank sees Mexico at 3.5%, more then double the rate of the US. They see European growth at 3.3%, which we see at 2% at best.

If you can believe this, the European downgrades, now that they have been accomplished, has generally set support levels for stock and bond markets, this in spite of a probably 20% plus lower S&P earnings for 2012. In three-months the Dow and S&P are up about 20%, which can only be maintained at best.

The unbelievable prosperity since WWII is over, as use of credit is curtailed and the US and world returns to reality. The average debt increase is $2.5 billion per year or $50 billion a year. That sustainability cannot be maintained indefinitely.

Fewer companies in the U.S. plan to boost payrolls in early 2012 even as growth is projected to pick up, a survey showed.

The share of companies seeking to add workers in the next six months fell to 27 percent, the lowest in at least five quarters, and 64 percent said employment will not change, the National Association for Business Economics said today in Washington. Sixty-five percent of firms estimated the world’s largest economy will grow more than 2 percent this year, up from 16 percent in an October survey.

“The optimism reflects growth in the economy,” said Nayantara Hensel, chairwoman of the NABE outlook survey committee and professor of Industry and Business at the National Defense University in Washington. “But the optimism could change as there’s also uncertainty. That’s why we see a degree of caution on employment.”

An improvement in the jobless rate and retail sales going into the holiday season may have helped lift the outlook in the latest survey, she said. At the same time, employers were holding steady on hiring and investment plans given concern over Europe’s debt woes, efforts to trim the U.S. deficit and swings in the price of oil reflecting tensions with Iran, Hensel said.

The share projecting employment will increase was down from 29 percent in October and 42 percent in the January 2011 report. Eight percent said they will cut payrolls, down from 12 percent in the previous survey.

In the latest survey, taken Dec. 15 to Jan. 5, fewer participants also said they will pick up the pace of spending on new plants and equipment for the next 12 months. Fifty-three percent forecast a rise in capital investment, down from 60 percent in the prior survey, and 42 percent said it would stay the same.

While 29 percent of respondents projected sales would decrease in the next six months due to the debt crisis in Europe, 63 percent said it was unlikely to affect demand. Firms were about evenly divided over whether the failure of U.S. debt- reduction efforts would hurt their business.

A stable inflation outlook was among the bright spots in the report. About 55 percent of companies said materials costs were likely to remain little changed in the next three months, similar to the prior survey, and 71 percent of firms reported wages are holding steady.

Sixty-three NABE members responded to the survey. The National Association for Business Economics, founded in 1959, is the professional organization for people who use economics in their work.

South Carolina’s attorney general has notified the U.S. Justice Department of potential voter fraud.

Attorney General Alan Wilson sent details of an analysis by the Department of Motor Vehicles to U.S. Attorney Bill Nettles.

In a letter dated Thursday, Wilson says the analysis found 953 ballots cast by voters listed as dead. In 71 percent of those cases, ballots were cast between two months and 76 months after the people died. That means they “voted” up to 6 1/3 years after their death.

The letter doesn’t say in which elections the ballots were cast.

The analysis came out of research for the state’s new voter identification law. The U.S. Justice Department denied clearance of that law.

Wilson told Nettles he asked the State Law Enforcement Division to investigate.

The New American Divide The ideal of an ‘American way of life’ is fading as the working class falls further away from institutions like marriage and religion and the upper class becomes more isolated. Charles Murray on what’s cleaving America, and why.

The primary indicator of the erosion of industriousness in the working class is the increase of primeage males with no more than a high school education who say they are not available for work they are “out of the labor force.” That percentage went from a low of 3% in 1968 to 12% in 2008…

In 1960, America already had the equivalent of SuperZIPs in the form of famously elite neighborhoods.

But despite their prestige, the people in them weren’t uniformly wealthy or even affluent. Across 14 of the most elite places to live in 1960, the median family income wasn’t close to affluence. It was just $84,000 (in today’s purchasing power). Only one in four adults in those elite communities had a college degree.

By 2000, that diversity had dwindled. Median family income had doubled, to $163,000 in the same elite ZIP Codes. The percentage of adults with B.A.s rose to 67% from 26%. And it’s not just that elite neighborhoods became more homogeneously affluent and highly educated …

Why have these new lower and upper classes emerged? For explaining the formation of the new lower class, the easy explanations from the left don’t withstand scrutiny. It’s not that white working class males can no longer make a “family wage” that enables them to marry. The average male employed in a working-class occupation earned as much in 2010 as he did in 1960. It’s not that a bad job market led discouraged men to drop out of the labor force. Labor-force dropout increased just as fast during the boom years of the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s as it did during bad years.

As I’ve argued in much of my previous work, I think that the reforms of the 1960s jump-started the deterioration. Changes in social policy during the 1960s made it economically more feasible to have a child without having a husband if you were a woman or to get along without a job if you were a man; safer to commit crimes without suffering consequences; and easier to let the government deal with problems in your community that you and your neighbors formerly had to take care of. [Socialism]

Unemployment dropped in 37 U.S. states in December, indicating the improvement in the job market is broad based as the economy picks up.

Alabama showed the biggest decrease in joblessness, with its rate falling to 8.1 percent last month from 8.7 percent in November, a report from the Labor Department showed today in Washington. Payrolls increased in 25 states, led by Texas.

An average of 6.69 billion shares changed hands on U.S. exchanges in the 50 days ended Jan. 18, the fewest on record in Bloomberg data starting three years ago that excludes over-the-counter venues. On the New York Stock Exchange, volume has tumbled to the lowest level since 1999.

Warren Buffett’s Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC is among U.S. and Canadian railroads that stand to benefit from the Obama administration’s decision to reject TransCanda Corp’s Keystone XL oil pipeline permit.

If the GOP had any smarts, they’d batter Obama and Buffett over this incessantly.

Bob Chapman on the Power hour – 23 January 2012


Get a free one year subscription to The International Forecaster when you buy a gold Franc from Midas Resources. Click here for more information.

Georgia Court to Decide if Obama is a Natural Born Citizen

Sunday, January 29th, 2012

By AFP Staff
American Free Press

Questions of the President’s natural born citizenship are continuing in a Georgia court.

Is Barack Obama the president, or is he still a candidate? Carl Swensson is trying to prove, in a court in his home state of Georgia, that Obama is not legally the POTUS, by claiming that he is not a natural born citizen. After the interview, check out Swensson’s website, where his goal in this legal battle is to keep Obama off of Georgia’s ballot. And on January 26, 2012, a hearing was held to listen to Swensson’s case – click here for archived video of the hearing. In addition, AFP’s own Corresponding Editor Pat Shannan has written of this issue.


For more no-nonsense, uncensored, and independent news like this, visit American Free Press online.

Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.