The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Archive for September 28th, 2009

New Indoctrination Video: Vids of teachers having kids sing praises to Obama coming out almost daily!

Posted by iusbvision on September 28, 2009

This is child abuse and I stand by that statement 110% and challenge anyone to DARE debate me publicly on the subject.

The growing list of these video’s is a real indicator of just what bad judgement many teachers have, but also to the degree the NEA will go to abuse the public trust for their own partisan reasons. How many times must we learn the lesson that cults of personality have consequences?


The caption with the video says: Sand Hill Elementary School in Asheville, NC

There has also been concern about school teachers doing things like taking songs about Jesus and replacing Jesus with Obama and teaching the kids to sing them in public schools and other outrageous acts of propaganda as has been done HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.

How often is this going on when we don’t find the video?

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Leftist Hate in Action | 2 Comments »

Regulation costs California economy $492 Billion – That is $134,122.48 per small business …

Posted by iusbvision on September 28, 2009

Our friend Michael van der Galien at Poligazette posted a link to a study that explains the degree in which bad government can destroy wealth, kill jobs and raise the prices of everything you buy.

http://www.sba.ca.gov/Cost%20of%20Regulation%20Study%20-%20Final.pdf

Poligazette explains that the total cost of regulation to the State of California is $492.994 billion per year. That is ‘almost five times the State’s general fund budget, and almost a third of the State’s gross product.’ 3.8 million jobs are lost because of overregulation which is a tenth of the State’s population. Furthermore:

Since small business constitute 99.2% of all employer businesses in California, and all of non-employer business, the regulatory cost is borne almost completely by small business. The total cost of regulation was $134,122.48 per small business in California in 2007, labor income not created or lost was $4,359.55 per small business, indirect business taxes not generated or lost were $57,260.15 per small business, and finally roughly one job lost per small business.

Some people feel better “when that rich guy” or “that business owner” gets taxed. Democrats play the class warfare game and tell us how they are going to “make them pay” etc… How does $500 Billion in lost wealth every year make you feel now? How many jobs could that money create? How many movie tickets bought, homes built, computers made, policeman trained, schools improved, cars repaired, and the list goes on?

It is important to keep in mind, every regulation is an arbitrary barrier to creating products, wealth and jobs. Getting rid of regulation does NOT mean getting rid of good policing. While rhetorically there may not be much difference between regulation and policing, in practice the difference is massive. We all want an active but limited government to protect us from fraud, abuse and crooks.  

As I commented on Poligazette:

I hate to throw soot on a gloomy picture, but it is even worse.

Why does California, a state that has more ability to create wealth than most countries, have this level of regulation that is causing the state to fall apart and its population vote with their feet and leave?

For each of these regulations, someone benefits either monetarily or ideologically. Many of these regulations simply serve to pick winners and losers by tilting the scale to help some business while harming their competition; with the winners kicking money back to interest groups and legislators.

The California Legislature is so strapped with the corruption otherwise known as “political market economics” (aka corporatism light) that it is a wonder the state went this long before starting to fall apart economically. But until the people who vote there learn a lesson I do not expect things to change in any meaningful way.

These regulations keep coming and the latest proposals are to have the state ban certain colors from cars, mandate the color of the roof of buildings and even have your home thermostat connected to the internet so the state can control the temperature of your home.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes, Government Gone Wild | 1 Comment »

Obama Will Spend More on Welfare in the Next Year Than Bush Spent on Entire Iraq War, Study Reveals

Posted by iusbvision on September 28, 2009

Keep in mind that the pork laden Stimulus Bill reversed the hugely popular and successful Welfare Reform Bill that President Clinton and the Republican Congress worked so hard to get passed. Welfare Reform was President Clinton’s greatest legacy and Obama/Pelosi took it away from him. If rank and file Democrats were aware of this they would be outraged and rightly so.  Republicans should pound this story, but as usual their communications machine isn’t up to par.

CNS News:

As a candidate for president, Barack Obama decried the financial toll that the Iraq war was taking on the economy, but Obama’s proposed spending on welfare through 2010 will eclipse Bush’s war spending by more than $260 billion.

“Because of the Bush-McCain policies, our debt has ballooned,” thenSen. Barack Obama told a Charleston, W.V., crowd in March 2008. “This is creating problems in our fragile economy. And that kind of debt also places an unfair burden on our children and grandchildren, who will have to repay it.”During the entire administration of George W. Bush, the Iraq war cost a total of $622 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.
 
President Obama’s welfare spending will reach $888 billion in a single fiscal year–2010–more than the Bush administration spent on war in Iraq from the first “shock and awe” attack in 2003 until Bush left office in January. 

Obama’s spending proposals call for the largest increases in welfare benefits in U.S. history, according to a report by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. This will lead to a spending total of $10.3 trillion over the next decade on various welfare programs. These include cash payments, food, housing, Medicaid and various social services for low-income Americans and those at 200 percent of the poverty level, or $44,000 for a family of four. Among that total, $7.5 trillion will be federal money and $2.8 trillion will be federally mandated state expenditures.
 
In that same West Virginia speech last year, Obama said, “When Iraq is costing each household about $100 a month, you’re paying a price for this war.”
 
The Heritage study says, “Applying that same standard to means-tested welfare spending reveals that welfare will cost each household $560 per month in 2009 and $638 per month in 2010.”

Posted in Other Links | Leave a Comment »

RASMUSSEN POLL: ObamaCare bill approval at 41%

Posted by iusbvision on September 28, 2009

Rasmussen:

Just 41% of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down two points from a week ago and the lowest level of support yet measured.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% are opposed to the plan.

Senior citizens are less supportive of the plan than younger voters. In the latest survey, just 33% of seniors favor the plan while 59% are opposed. The intensity gap among seniors is significant. Only 16% of the over-65 crowd Strongly Favors the legislation while 46% are Strongly Opposed.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Obama as Nazi Signs at Tea Parties from LaRouche Democrats – UPDATED!

Posted by iusbvision on September 28, 2009

From the College Politico with absolute video proof. It proves beyond reasonable doubt that the Obama as Hitler signs are at tea parties are clearly from LaRouche Democrats and not traditionalists, libertarians or conservatives. The elite media such as NBC, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC have been showing these signs and presenting them as if they are typical of people at the protests when they are not.

Since any close-up of the sign or interview of people carrying them makes it clear they they are from LaRouche it is next to imnpossible to believe that the elite media did not know who these signs were really from. They made a choice to slander you.

UPDATE: Rachel Maddow at MSNBC uses the LaRouche Democrats Obama=Hitler sign to smear tea party protesters.

maddow obama hitler larouche

This is a screen shot of Maddow’s show that appeared on Newsbusters.

Paul Williams has a video showing the glaring hypocrisy of the left on this matter. This is a must see if there ever was one.

Evan Coyne Maloney wrote a piece titled, “Hitler Comparisons and Media Reporting: Then and Now“.

Danny Glover at Hotair.com has a gereat piece titled, “The Media’s Hitler Hypocrisy Exposed“.

UPDATE II – Who goes naked and destroys cities to protest? Factreal.Com has all the details LINK.

Posted in 2012, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | 4 Comments »

The Young Won’t Stand for this Health Care Bill

Posted by iusbvision on September 28, 2009

If the new ObamaCare bill passes it will generate two generations of Republican voters.

The shall issue mandate in current proposed legislation will cause premiums to skyrocket (details why below). Young people will not be able to afford it and as a result will be forced to opt for paying the mandated tax penalty. The penalty will still be much less than the premiums. The result, since the public option is gone, will be even more people who cannot afford health insurance, more employers who cannot afford health insurance for their employees, with both the poor, young and small employers paying higher taxes to subsidize the baby boomers.

It’s a rip off and there is a smarter way to do this.

Wall Street Journal:

Let’s have an honest debate before we transfer more money from young to old.

By Leavitt, Hubbard & Hennessey

Let’s start with basics: Insurance protects against the risk of something bad happening. When your house is on fire you no longer need protection against risk. You need a fireman and cash to rebuild your home. But suppose the government requires insurers to sell you fire “insurance” while your house is on fire and says you can pay the same premium as people whose houses are not on fire. The result would be that few homeowners would buy insurance until their houses were on fire.

The same could happen under health insurance reform. Here’s how: President Obama proposes to require insurers to sell policies to everyone no matter what their health status. By itself this requirement, called “guaranteed issue,” would just mean that insurers would charge predictably sick people the extremely high insurance premiums that reflect their future expected costs. But if Congress adds another requirement, called “community rating,” insurers’ ability to charge higher premiums for higher risks will be sharply limited.

Thus a healthy 25-year-old and a 55-year-old with cancer would pay nearly the same premium for a health policy. Mr. Obama and his allies emphasize the benefits for the 55-year old. But the 25-year-old, who may also have a lower income, would pay significantly more than needed to cover his expected costs.

Like the homeowner who waits until his house is on fire to buy insurance, younger, poorer, healthier workers will rationally choose to avoid paying high premiums now to subsidize insurance for someone else. After all, they can always get a policy if they get sick.

To avoid this outcome, most congressional Democrats and some Republicans would combine guaranteed issue and community rating with the requirement that all workers buy health insurance—that is, an “individual mandate.” This solves the incentive problem, and guarantees that both the healthy poor 25-year-old and the sick higher-income 55-year-old have heath insurance.

But the combination of a guaranteed issue, community rating and an individual mandate means that younger, healthier, lower-income earners would be forced to subsidize older, sicker, higher-income earners. And because these subsidies are buried within health-insurance premiums, the massive income redistribution is hidden from public view and not debated.

Mr. Leavitt, former secretary of Health and Human Services (2005-2009), has served as the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and a governor of Utah (1993-2003). Mr. Hubbard (2005-2007) and Mr. Hennessey (2008) served as directors of the White House National Economic Council.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

J.C. Watts: Put Away the Race Card

Posted by iusbvision on September 28, 2009

Congressman Watts:

Polls and voting data don’t support Carter’s remarks

There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president.”

That comment comes from former President Jimmy Carter, which is fascinating considering Carter once ran for governor of Georgia proclaiming himself to be a “Lester Maddox Democrat.” (Maddox, a former Georgia governor, was an avowed segregationist who opposed integration under the Civil Rights Act.)

In fairness to President Carter, I do believe in redemption, and that people can change. But more and more people are inclined to say anyone who disagrees with Barack Obama must be racist.

Watts_JC_2007

J.C. Watts

It hurts me when the left and the right use race for political gain, and it depresses me further that it’s so awkward for us to talk about honestly and objectively about race. However, the implication that disagreeing with the president is racist also saddens and perplexes me.

Donna Brazile, campaign manager for Al Gore in 2000 and now a CNN analyst, nailed it when she said, “No one wins in touching race in such a shallow way. It raises defenses and creates backlash.”

The race issue blew up two weeks ago when Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., called Obama a liar on the floor of the House during the president’s address to a joint session of Congress. Although Democrats booed President Bush in that same chamber during a State of the Union a few years ago, it was still wrong for Wilson to do this.

He called the president’s chief of staff and apologized. I would have preferred he do it on the floor of the House, which is where the incident occurred.

There has always been a certain decorum in the people’s House. Boos and yelling “You lie!” are not part of that decorum.

Some try to defend one yelling “You lie!” because others boo, but two wrongs don’t make a right. Of course, we see this logic in politics from Democrats and Republicans both.

Be that as it may, was Wilson’s outburst racist? The congressman said it was not, so I take him at his word, and the opposition we’ve seen to the president’s agenda would not equate to racism based on the data released in the last year.

— President Obama did not get the majority of the white vote in 2008. Is that evidence of racism? No. This has been the case with Democrat candidates for years, including President Carter.

— President Obama did slightly better with the white vote in 2008 than John Kerry did in 2004.

— Before President Obama proposed a government takeover of the health care system, his approval rating with white voters was 57 percent.

— Between Election Day and the launch of Democrats’ health insurance reform efforts, President Obama did well with independent voters. But he has lost about 18 points with this demographic in the past two months. Most of these independent voters are white.

The data simply do not support President Carter’s claim.

Are there some people who didn’t vote for Obama because he’s black? Certainly. Just as there were some who opposed John McCain because he is white.

There are people of all colors who believe it is wrong for the government to take over our health care system.

There are people of all colors who believe we will have no choice but to ration health care when we put between 35 million and 40 million more people in the system but yet have the same number of doctors.

There are people of all colors who believe we already ration care through Medicare and Medicaid.

There are people of every color who believe it is bad economic policy to raise taxes, especially in a weak economy.

I would remind you that in the last two years of the Bush administration, conservatives were taking shots at President Bush for all his profligate spending, and it was never framed in terms other than “Republicans are mad at Bush for all the spending.”

How inconsistent that the media loved disgruntled conservatives being disenchanted with Bush, but abhor criticism of President Obama.

There are people of all colors who believe we are literally mortgaging our children’s futures with this spending spree. These people would have felt the same with if it were President Hillary Clinton, Kerry, Bill Richardson or any other president proposing the nationalization of 16 percent of our economy and spending like there’s no tomorrow.

Ironically, I wonder how President Carter would view things if it were President Clarence Thomas proposing tax relief, protection for the unborn, raising the troop levels in Afghanistan or exploring for oil right here in the United States.

As Arsenio Hall used to say, “It’s something that makes you say ‘Hmmm.’ ”

J.C. Watts (JCWatts01@jcwatts.com) is chairman of J.C. Watts Companies, a business consulting group. He is former chairman of the Republican Conference of the U.S. House, where he served as an Oklahoma representative from 1995 to 2002. He writes for the Review-Journal twice monthly.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Health Law, Leftist Hate in Action, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »