How bad has Barack Obama’s decline at the polls become? Even CBS has finally realized it. Both approval and disapproval numbers have moved sharply over the last month, and in the wrong direction, as voters have discovered that Obama hasn’t a clue about the economy and creating jobs.
There was never a single reason, to anyone with a lick of economic sense, to think that Barack Obama knew the first thing about job creation. He had no experience with it in his life up to that point, and most of his chosen mentors and associates have been Marxists and other economic ignorami. Now that he’s validating those of us who were always skeptical, the rest of the rubes are catching on as well. And even CBS, with its skewed poll, can’t deny it any more.
Here’s the ugly income-tax math. First, Mr. Obama has promised to let the lower Bush tax rates expire after 2010. This would raise the top personal income tax rate to 39.6% from 35%, and the next rate to 36% from 33%. The Bush expiration would also phase out various tax deductions and exemptions, bringing the top marginal rate to as high as 41%.
Then add the Rangel Surtax of one percentage point, starting at $280,000 ($350,000 for couples), plus another percentage point at $400,000 ($500,000 for couples), rising to three points on more than $800,000 ($1 million) in 2011. But wait, there’s more. The surcharge could rise by two more percentage points in 2013 if health-care costs are larger than advertised — which is a near-certainty. Add all of this up and the top marginal tax rate would climb to 46%, which hasn’t been seen in the U.S. since the Reagan tax reform of 1986 cut the top rate to 28% from 50%.
Combined with the upcoming rise in the minimum wage, remember things like this when Democrats lie about how they’re interested in creating jobs.
This post is about a half hour before launch. I’m listening to the countdown status on the webcast.
[Update a little before 11 PM EDT]
They’re now at T minus fifteen, on a weather hold, hoping to pick it up in less than half an hour at T minus three something.
[Update just before midnight EDT]
It looks like a successful launch. Congratulations, SpaceX. This is a huge milestone — the first successful delivery of a payload into orbit. Now on to a successful Falcon 9 launch later this year.
[Morning update]
The launch seemed to be entirely successful. Clark Lindsey has some thoughts on the implications. I particularly like the last one:
Sen. Shelby should be forced to watch the launch video over and over…
I’m sure he’s seething this morning, assuming that someone had the moxie to tell him about it.
When I think about the economy I think about a plump man who has just been hit by a truck while crossing a street and is in severely critical condition with internal bleeding. Instead of just stabilizing his hemorrhaging, the doctor decides that while the patient is unconscious, he might as well also do a face lift, some coronary bypasses and a stomach-stapling to keep him from gaining weight while he is recovering (if he does recover). After all, a crisis is not to be wasted.
The problem is that all these ambitious operations create too much of a burden for the human body to bear.
Similarly, we have an administration that is simultaneously seeking to end the recession, discussing drastic changes to laws on foreclosures and energy use and completely changing the health care system. I respectfully question whether all of this makes sense.
It’s a good question. And I’m pretty sure of the answer.
Well, actually, engineers aren’t supposed to be superstitious like that, but here’s hoping for a successful Falcon 1 launch this evening (late afternoon on the west coast).
…it should be clear that the Fed causing a housing bubble in order to bring about “soaring household spending” was Krugman’s optimal situation, whether or not he thought it was doable at the time. Given the consequences of the housing bubble that did ultimately happen, that alone should be enough cause for the public to stop listening to this fellow.
But…but…! He has a Nobel Prize! And he writes for the New York Times! The New. York. Times.
Not listen to Paul Krugman? Why, it would be madness!
Next, they’re going to tell me I should pay no attention to Maureen Dowd, or Frank Rich.
When you look at both Boeing and Airbus, you have to ask, can’t anyone play this game? And how did we get in a position in which there are only two manufacturers of large air transports in the world?
…the truest answer as to why we do not accept Medicare is that the service does not focus on what we feel is paramount: practicing effective and efficient medicine in order to ultimately achieve and maintain the good health of our patients. The service’s paltry reimbursement structure coupled with its impossible to-adhere-to regulations doesn’t allow us to offer a complete service to our patients. This complete service includes wellness care as well as the ability to take the time to understand each patient’s unique medical needs and circumstances.
The crux of the issue is that Medicare worries about the forest, in other words, the internal process, money management, reimbursement and policing agreements, data mining, and organizing dozens of internal bureaucracies. These agendas and policing policies help the Medicare service to manage the forest, however these are often in direct conflict with what we feel is key to effective healthcare: taking care of the individual, or each tree.
OK, Dems, want us to have confidence in a “public option”? Fix Medicare first.