That is, they’ve gone to the dogs for their latest tax/fee increase proposal:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20090918state_plots_dog_surcharge/srvc=home&position=3

Not content with an increase in the state sales tax in August from 5% to 6.25%, these bozos now want a $3 surcharge on municipal license fees for your little pooch.  A democrat state rep claims that the additional fees are needed to pay for the cost of the rising number of strays.  Those who take good care of their dogs will now have to pay the cost for those who don’t.  Maybe the initiative petition that was passed last November  

http://www.wirenh.com/News/News_-_general/closing_tracks_in_Mass._could_leave_greyhounds_homeless_200811283255.html

outlawing greyhound racing in the state after this year, is contributing to the stray problem through the abandonment of these dogs by owners who would otherwise need to move to another state that has such racing. 

I wonder if these reps have any clue as to the number of dog owners there are in the state?  Picking on their fidos in a “man bites dog” story can come back to “bite” them next year at the polls.

I guess they will call this surtax a fee on “undocumented doggies”.

Many in the press would have you believe that he is doing a bad job in supporting the British troops in Afghanistan:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2619400/Tory-landslide-predicted-at-next-election-in-crucial-Sun-poll.html

But another story from the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html

hits closer to home.  The people are seeing how state-run health care has now led to what essentially are death committees, whereby doctors and other medical staff are prematurely determining who is close to death and not worthy of adequate medical treatment to improve their situations.  And many of these patients conditions are actually improving while they are being given a death sentence.

This is what we are heading toward in the U.S. if Obamacare and the public option become law.  This is why seniors and others have been blistering these reps at those town meetings.  But the press just writes them off as right-wing extremists.

Well, when the Tories take firm control in Britain next spring, the Democrats will finally have their wake-up call, but by then it will be too late for them.

On September 8, 2009, Obama will address all public school children across the U.S.:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10582301/President-Obama’s-Address-to-Students-Across-America-September-8-2009

 
As shown in this link, the Department of Education has sent out a menu of classroom activities for PreK-6 students. Since Obama has been unable to convince most Americans about his health care plan, especially seniors, perhaps he can persuade the children that this is a right that all of them are entitled to. He can instruct them on how best to get their parents and grandparents to come around to his way of thinking.

If President Bush had ever done this, you can imagine the teachers and administrators reactions. If the comments in the link are any indication, there will be high absenteism that day.

I am ashamed to say that a town in my state of MA puts community decorum above the need to show respect and appreciation for the veterans of the Irag and Afghanistan wars.  A Millbury, MA stoneworks owner donated a granite statue to the town of Swampscott after a Swampcott Veterans Agent wrote the winning essay in a contest to see where the statue would be donated:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20090806swampscott_passes_on_statue_honoring_troops_this_johnnie_wont_be_marching_home/srvc=home&position=also

Now that the town has rejected the statue, the owner is looking for a new home for it.  If he were to look outside of MA, I’m sure it wouldn’t take him long to find one.

After over two decades in Los Angeles, Creators Syndicate has had enough.  Retroactive tax increases, interest and penalties were just too much to bear:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124718265362620253.html#mod=djemEditorialPage

The City of Los Angeles business income tax is one of the harshest and oppressive in the country.  The tax is on gross revenue, not profits, so you can lose money for the year and still pay the tax. Typical Hollywood accounting.  But Hollywood types, like writers and other creative people, get enormous exemptions.  They are the “beautiful people”, though.

Since the state’s tax proposals were turned down by the California voters last month, the bureaucrats have stepped up their tyrannical approach to obtaining new sources of revenue with agencies such as the Department of Corporations and the Housing and Building Departments reopening old, previously settled claims, and demanding back monies and damages.

I wonder if the Obama people are taking notes on all of this for application on a national level?

Lastly, it would be nice to know how much the founder, Rick Newcombe, has contributed to the Democrats over those two decades and voted for the people who put California in its current situation.

They still don’t get it out on the left coast.  Even after a state referendum that told legislators (and the governator) that the people wanted spending cuts, not tax increases, these jokers must be on a death wish.  As Jane Wells of CNBC reports today,

http://www.cnbc.com/id/31669585

an 18 cent gas tax is being repealed and changed to a user fee, while other new taxes are being placed on tobacco and oil production.  They are calling this “tax neutral” while it really increases revenues because of the “flim-flam” going on here, which many are calling unconstitutional.

Being a legislator in California may be hazardous to your wealth, since the California Citizens Compensation Commission voted today to cut legislators’ fringe benefits by 18%, to go along with the 18% cut in pay they had previously voted upon, both to take effect on December 1.

All those years of unrestricted illegal immigration and out of control environmental policies, and their consequent economic impact, are finally taking their toll, and the chickens are coming home to roost.

Where is the outrage here regarding the predicament in which Michael Savage finds himself?  I won’t even bother to link anything since I’m sure most of you know what I am talking about.

While Savage may not have many friends at this website, he is still an American citizen with the same free speech rights that the rest of us enjoy.  To lump him in with terrorists who would cut your throat or chop your head off without the slightest provocation strains credulity.  To ban him from entering the United Kingdom shows a complete disrespect by their government for the Constitutional rights accorded to all American citizens.

Further, the UK is in direct violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to freedom of expression.  Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , to which the US and UK are signatories, provides that

 ”Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print…”

The European Court on Human Rights has held that the “freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society.”  The Court went on to say that this freedom of expression is not only applicable to information and ideas that are favorably received, but “also to those that offend, shock or disturb.”

If this were happening to Rush, the outcry would be deafening.  But the slippery slope begins with an easy target, and soon could become an avalanche.  Some of us may disapprove of what Savage says, but we should defend to the death his right to say it.

Obama, as President, is now asking for $83.4 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  As Senator he was against the wars and voted in 2007 not to fund them….

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97F3U5O0&show_article=1

In addition to the funding he has increased troop levels in Afghanistan.  Now that he is Commander-In-Chief, I wonder how he would feel about Senators who vote against the increased funding?  Also, I wonder how many Democrat Senators who voted against the funding in 2007 will now vote for it?  And what will be their excuse for their flip-flop in voting for the $83 billion after they were against it?  A’ la John Kerry.

This video today says it all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGk5yvYReHs

The latest one I’m hearing concerns housing for the homeless.  With unemployment increasing with each passing day, the ranks of the homeless are, too.  Tent cities are popping up in places like Sacramento and San Diego, and the mayors of those cities are getting restless.

We have a glut of foreclosed and soon to be foreclosed homes, with most of those dwellings now vacant, owned by the banks.  The banks would like to unload these properties as fast as possible, whatever the price.

Enter the U.S. Government.  They would buy up these foreclosed homes from the banks and solve the homeless problem in one, swift stroke.  The homeless would be provided with Section 8 housing, the glut of unsold homes would be alleviated, the homeless would be sheltered, the housing recovery would begin, and with it the overall economic recovery.

The government could care less that Section 8 housing would depress real estate prices for years, and could care less that local communities would have new budget problems resulting from the increased crime that would manifest itself.  And it would welcome a society that more than ever is dependent on the government in everyday life.  And it would all be paid for with additional taxes on all of us, whether or not they choose to call it a bailout.

Don’t laugh.  From what this administration has shown thus far, this is a very real possibility.

Most people believe that Warren Buffet is a sage when it comes to economic and finacial matters. That may have been true decades ago, but lately Buffet has a less than perfect record of picking the direction of the economy and the stock market. Consider the following two Barron’s articles published in March and October of this year:

“In the equity-derivatives market, Berkshire has taken in $4.5 billion in premiums for selling at-the-money puts on the S&P 500 and three foreign equity indexes, with original terms of 15 to 20 years and distant expiration dates between 2019 to 2027. With this bullish bet, Berkshire will pocket the entire premium, plus investment income on the $4.5 billion, if the relevant equity indexes are above where they stood when the company sold the options. A put sale allows Berkshire’s counterparty or counterparties to sell the indexes to Berkshire at the option maturity dates. This is a huge option trade because the puts apparently involve a $35 billion notional amount of stock indexes. The trade looks shrewd because these so-called European put options can only be exercised at maturity. Barring a credit downgrade, Berkshire probably doesn’t have to post margin collateral against the puts if the trade goes against it in the interim. The odds are the puts will expire worthless, because the S&P and other indexes tend to rise over time.”
(Barron’s - 3/10/08)

“Buffett’s Berkshire equity portfolio, which stood at $69 billion on June 30, is falling in value, although it’s ahead of the major averages this year. Berkshire has written, or sold, long-dated put options on some $40 billion of equity indexes, including the S&P 500. Those put sales, which amount to a bullish market bet, are deep in the red, although Berkshire doesn’t have to post collateral against any paper losses. We estimate those puts could have cost Berkshire as much as $2 billion in the third quarter and several billion more dollars this quarter, with the S&P down over 20%. Berkshire ultimately may score with these puts if they expire worthless at maturity between 2019 and 2027. But the normally savvy Buffett made a mistake investing in financial derivatives, about which he has long warned. Berkshire had no comment. The brutal market sell-off has stung even famed investors like Buffett.”
(Barron’s - 10/13/08)

Warren Buffet made a massive, risky, bullish bet on the stock market, and it is coming back to haunt him big time. And let’s not forget that another of Obama’s economic advisors is Robert Rubin, who, after serving as Clinton’s Treasury secretary, became a Director and Senior Counselor to Citigroup, and was instrumental in overseeing the collapse of that banking institution.

Then we have Paul Volcker, former chairman of the U.N.-appointed Independent Inquiry Committee into the Iraq Oil-for-Food Program. His unwillingness to draw unfavorable conclusions regarding the actions of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and his son, Kojo Annan, about allegations of impropriety in the oil-for-food fiasco, should give one pause. It was obvious to all but the far left that mismanagement, incompetence, and unac­countability at the U.N. was rampant. All we need now is for Volcker to protect Obama and his economic prescription for the country the same way he protected Annan.

These are not the people we need advising the President for the next four years. What happened to the “change” that was coming. We seem to be recycling some old retreads.

Thisis must reading for everyone. Powerline does an excellent job of taking down this reporter. Someone needs to do some checking on this so-called reporter. If this type of smearing is allowed to stand without retort, then we really are doomed.

Thisis must reading for everyone. Powerline does an excellent job of taking down this reporter. Someone needs to do some checking on this so-called reporter. If this type of smearing is allowed to stand without retort, then we really are doomed.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=827744894&play=1

After years of hearing that we must tax the rich (anyone making over $150,000/year), it seems that the Democrats’ fascination with class warfare has come full circle in the State of New York. High paying jobs in New York’s financial district are continuing to disappear.

Governor Paterson has stated that the brokerage and investment community represents one fifth of all of the state’s tax revenues. The loss of jobs and planned reduction in bonuses is putting the state in its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, at least according to Paterson. The state faces mounting deficits in its budget, and he says the only way out of this is to cut spending.

Apparently the state wasn’t satisfied with 20% of its revenue stream from the brokers, so disgraced former Governor Eliot Spitzer, in his role as Attorney General, went after the investment bankers for alleged “stock price inflation”, among other misdeeds. Spitzer also went after the former chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, Richard Grasso, claiming he failed to fully inform the board of directors about his $140 million deferred compensation package, a case which Grasso recently won. Just keep pounding away at the so-called “rich”. As they now understand, putting a large chunk of your tax revenues at risk by relying on high income individuals and corporations to provide that revenue stream, isn’t such a good idea. And this is a state and city with very high tax rates on top of it.

Governor Paterson is scheduled to address the Democrat convention next week. I wonder if he will tell them that the answer to falling state tax revenues is to cut spending, and not to raise taxes? Don’t hold your breath waiting for that speech.