As we Close 2014 -CNN Outlines Why It Might Have been a bad Year for Obama –They missed a few!

In an effort to figure out why the President’s poll numbers have been less than stellar these past few months, CNN has suggestedsix reasons why: Obama Care tops the list, the polling is number 2, the Snowdon Leaks at 3, number 4 – the IRS targeting, Number 5 is the Presidents “stalled agenda”, and rounding out the list: the “selfie” snap shot at Mandela’s funeral.(CNN)

They may have two of them correct, specifically the Obama Care rollout – which, due to the hyper-partisanship in the Senate (between Democrats and McCanian Republicans and the Constitutionalist), has come to fruition and is now laying waste to the lives of millions, while bits and pieces of the legislation are picked away – all without Congressional approval. The second woe that stands out in CNN’s list is the IRS Targeting of Conservative Groups, specifically Tea Party, during election cycles.

The balance are on the order of personal, or out of context: The Snowdon Leaks – although the buck stops at the top of the heap (i.e. with the President) – Snowdon’s filching of state secrets as a contractor hired by an agency that works for the Federal government is so far removed from the President it might as well be the moon. In this instance it is a case of general incompetence and little oversight of the hiring process associated with the contractors, coupled with the same as far as the government agencies are concerned. Agree or disagree with Snowdon, the point is – like other spies, one is either caught or not and this was not personally a pervue of the President.

(The contents however…)

The Stalled agenda, considering Obama Care, may be a plus rather than a minus for this particular President. The polling was bound to happen, historically, second term Presidents rarely have high poll numbers, given the degree with which the public interest is waning and looking for the next best President. A second term gives one’s detractors an ability to trash the daylights out of the guy sitting in the throne room, in a political move to swipe Congress and the Senate for their Party. Suffice it to say: Clinton, Bush, Gorge W (although Clinton’s numbers were unusually high for second term Presidents).

If, however, the polling goes to Carter levels, the one might want to find a good fictional – historian to set the record straight.

Lastly, the “selfie” – one must give the guy a break. In many instances, especially state affairs, the President has been criticized, however, since the public should be used to gaffes at this point, and since it as a funeral of a former head of state and icon, perhaps the length of the ceremony was too much to bear, and there was a need for a bit of levity, and sharing the moment, no better way to capture that amongst heads of states, than – the selfie.

What CNN did not mention: the level of incompetence in the administration is mind-boggling, unfortunately the President, or is aid in charge of hiring staff including appointments, needs to take a long vacation.

Benghazi, although part and parcel of the State Departments’ purview, the President’s Cabinet members hound have played this one straight instead of blaming some grossly ridiculous cartoonish video – while not demanding that whoever gave the orders to stand down while a U.S. ambassador was murdered should have been hung out to dry.

Lastly, it is the high partisanship displayed by the President that has caused the problem he’s faced with now. Either that or he was working with the wrong Republicans’ (i.e. the McCain’s, etc.), as had he actually listened to those who were newly elected (similarly to himself, less to no experience in legislation) tea party, and tried to work with them rather than investigate and harass them – maybe, just maybe in a utopian world – Obama Care would have become the signature legislation known as – you can now afford insurance, we’ve opened up the state lines and all carriers can go anywhere, no mandates on every single policy (which had he looked at Massachusetts, he would have avoided all the mistakes that are breaking the budget in this Commonwealth) and finally those who have no insurance and cannot afford it, will be given the option of Medicaid – simple.

He would have made new friends and a ton of enemies on the left, but would have had skyrocketing poll numbers.

Of course, first he would have had to muzzle Harry Reid.

What can possibly go wrong in 2014? -

IRS – Targeting Political Groups to the Right and to the Left – Progressives On IRS List – They also Protested the Administration!

Image of Progressives in San Francisco protesting against Obama - Article Here at progressive.org

Who knew that Progressive Democrats had more in common that just living in the same city, state or country – they both are now knownto have been targeted by the IRS, according to the Miami Herald. Apparently some Democrats are irate that the agency swayed from its persecution of Conservative Groups and cross the line, politically speaking:

Democrats are unhappy that newly revealed Internal Revenue Service documents show the agency screened for progressive groups seeking tax-exempt status, not just the tea party organizations for which the IRS was already under fire.

Democrats also want to know why the Treasury Department inspector general who investigated IRS targeting of conservative groups didn't mention that terms like "Progressives" and "Healthcare legislation" were on the same lists agency workers used to find applications to review closely.

(Miami Herald)

Perhaps those who felt protected from the long-arm of the Administration and those at the IRS (Where a stunning 95% of the IRS lawyers donated to Obama(Front Page Magazine)), who were targeting those darn Tea Party groups, should have not had the nerve to stage protest against the President!! (CBS News)

One finds the news outlets, in full swing, as the story line is now that the Tea Party is complaining about something that happens to other political groups! – Therefore nothing to see anywhere, move along.(Business Week) – However, it also may be argued that an enemies list used, whereby, either directly or by proxy, against anyone who would naysay the President, may be something a bit more – malignant.

It is one thing to afford the man who holds the Office of the President some respect, but when it comes to adoration, specifically by employees of the government, to the point where some may be abusing the people, right or left of the political spectrum, that pay their salaries, perhaps, just perhaps, there should be a bit broader of an investigation by those in Congress who might wish to tame that arm of the government down a bit – perhaps modernizing to the point where, with everything automated, from filing to processing of payments, refunds and returns, it has become as relevant as the Post Office – except everyone likes the Post Office.

With all seriousness, rather than deflect the Tea Party Narrative of Abuse, what this does in highlight the probability of complicity between the Administration and the Internal Revenue Service. It is more than likely a group of zealots, rather than the man they feel transcends mortality, yet, it is to the point where it is becoming more clear by the day, that a smaller, leaner, Constitutional Federal Government would produce a more effective and efficient and stable United States.

Obama Administration Promotes Sarah Hall Ingram – From IRS Head of Conservative Group Harassment to IRS Oversight of ObamaCare – Appearances are Everything.

From ABC News Sarah Hall Ingram, The IRS official in charge during tea party (and religious, education, businesses, etc.) harassment, has been promoted to run the IRS unit overseeing “Obamacare”. In fact, during the height of group targeting by the IRS Ms. Ingram received substantial bonuses.(Washington Examiner).

There is a multitude of articles from a variety of sources suggesting that due to Ms. Hall Ingram’s tenure at the IRS, and the implications that she was involved in harassing citizens for their political and religious beliefs’, one might take pause that she is slated to be in control of one’s health care. The questions that remain are myriad – as to her role in the scandal, and how that role would translate to her new position. If in fact, she is ideologically driven, be it a Church group’s healthcare, or an individual who has political or religious inclinations that are not in simpatico with the current administration, then those individuals might finds themselves denied health care, or be subject to fines, and or increased premiums (above the anticipated increases that will most likely force millions into the government run programs.) In that scenario, reappointment to a less volatile position would be in the best interest of the Administration.

One might understand that the appearances of scandal are not the same thing as direct involvement, as that has yet to be determined. Additionally, with the size and scope of the government today, it is also quite possible that not everyone in every position is all that brilliant, nor has taken the time, or would have the time to oversee the “workers” who might just be a tad on the renegade side. In fact, she may be innocent of any wrongdoing what-so-ever, and yet, she is being tainted by the appearance of scandal, and further, guilt by association.

It is true that there are problems at the IRS as it relates to the treatment of those whose beliefs, political and religious, do not coincide with the administration. However, it is not clear, yet, who gave the ultimate orders. In addition, despite the fact that the law known as Obamacare is widely unpopular, especially with seniors and those conservatives who would prefer it be repealed and replaced, the lame brained idea of appointing this woman to head that division, while the IRS is blowing up, did her no service.

She, along with anyone else who has their fingers in the pie of the American Trust, are in over their heads, and that is apparent simply because as being the top executive in any branch, demands oversight of all operations to ensure all is running smoothly. Therefore, she was either complicit, or more likely incompetent, or incapable of managing the task.

There are three separate scandals (or, more to the point, Nixonian tactics) going on in DC at the moment. 1. Misleading the American Public intentionally on the deaths of American’s in Libya, 2. The IRS targeting of citizens and groups that do not share the same political ideological beliefs as the President, and 3. The tapping of Journalists (including the AP) in excess.

The measures to date have been denial and dodging questions. Is it quite possible, they all have no clue? Is it quite possible, that one hand does not know what the other is doing? Is it entirely possible, despite the insistence that everyone is brilliant, that they simply are not? That’s the real question. The danger in having a government so large, that it cannot be managed, unless by competent mangers, then it is time to downsize, and to restructure based on competence. In general, that’s what elections are for, yet, even with a smaller government, one might still encounter wrongdoing, or scandals, as we are all, human. Yet, it would be much easier to contain. The theory presented is that those how have led lives dependent upon academia and law, are most likely not capable of managing anything other than a dandy speech – and are, as stated, unable to manage the sizes of the government as it now stands. The Congressional Repeal of “Obamacare” is a step in the right direction (although one can bet the House that the Senate will not take it up…even though there is dissension in the ranks of the Democrats on this one issue.). There is much to do to placate the American Taxpayer – but partisan politics will continue to muddy the waters, unless and until the American People get fed up, and wake up, and simply stop hiring based on “experience” (those that have served multiple terms), or “Popularity”, or most importantly, those with an R or a D in front of their name, that cannot part ways with their Political Party now and again. Until that happens, and management, downsizing, and efficiency are first and foremost in the minds of those who operate the government - those who are in positions, such as Hall Ingram will be vilified.

From Media Trust to Media Shock - Fed Journalist Wire Taps – Is the AP Alone?

No need to edify - the New Comparison - image from thefinancialtimes.com

The Associated Press is outraged that the federal government had been secretly taping their phone lines in an action which, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, was ““an unacceptable abuse of power." by the Obama Administration (Los Angeles Times).

Given the fact that the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) is on the hot seat for secretly targeting ”conservative groups, especially prior to the 2012 election(Washington Post), it is not a stretch of the imagination that the control with which the government allots itself, would be capable of insuring that their press behave.

When one considers the extreme bias that the media, in general, has shown towards this administration, compared to say, the previous administration, (recent history), it must come as a shock to those who believe themselves to be immune to oversight by a government, to find themselves the target.

The AP is rightly outraged, as should be the rest of the media that believes it to be immune from Lincoln-like tactics, yet, they should have seen this coming. When, as a group, the office of the President is treated as above reproach, deified, and fawned over as if it were, not an elected office, rather a monarchy, then one must expect that heads might roll. There is a difference between respecting the office, and doing the job that a journalist is born for, seeking out the truth and reporting that truth, regardless of how it may or may not be ideologically simpatico with journalist political leanings.

Example: the attack immediately following the attack on Benghazi , the State Department and, by virtue of national security, the White House, were made aware of an Al Queda link, yet, this detail was “edited out”, and Susan Rice, the White House, UN Ambassador, went on multiple television news shows, and blamed a ridiculous video, continuing to do so for several weeks (along with other members of the administration). (Global Dispatch) The fact that in-real-time the administration knew exactly what was taking place, apparently was shoved under the proverbial rug, and being an election year, the media dutifully looked the other way. Suddenly, the opposition who had been maligned (and are still maligned) had something (that would be those Republicans). Now one sees Tom Brokaw asking questions and appearing “shocked”. How much longer before those who dare to question, are also under surveillance?

Sounds like a stretch, but consider that the AP, doing its job, felt confident in its protection under the Constitution? Again, when one treats an elected official as if they were born for the office, then one is doing a disservice to their profession, to the nation, and to that elected official. Why the elected official? Take the past week and the multitude of scandals (for lack of a better word), with which the President is now faced. If one were to back up a bit, and have seen journalist take their profession at its face value, the fact that there were “watchdogs” for the people, may have made the administration take more care in its treatment of certain situations. If the press were not lapdogs, and were watchdogs as they should have been, then perhaps, just perhaps, there would be no taint on the administration at all – only a bit here and there, no unlike any other administration.

The fact that the press, in general, has lost the confidence of the American People, who get their news from a variety of sources rather, or not at all, in most cases, should not be lost on those who profess to be journalists. Perhaps if bias towards a particular group (Conservatives, or certain Democrats who dare to cross party lines), were not so evident in every facet of the news, from the local, to the national, there might be some trust regained. If news articles or broadcasts, including sports articles, fashion, food, were not so focused on the political, rather on reporting, perhaps they might regain that trust. The problem they now face is that if they were to do so, they would certainly be concerned that jobs, their privacy, their freedom might be at stake. Or perhaps that’s what has been going on all along. It is a stretch, given the antipathy between the pubic and the press, and the perception that the press is nothing more than another arm of the government. It is as the AP, and those who follow, will be viewed as the “Boy who cried wolf”.

The U.S. Senate: The Value Added Tax and High End Income Tax Should Be Considered

Tax Experts have approached Treasury Secretary Tim Geithnerregarding the institution of a Value Added Tax. Additionally, the Washington Post is reporting that North Dakota Democrat, Kent Conrad, believes that both a Value Added Tax and a high end income tax need to be implemented as part of “tax reform”.

A Value Added Tax, or VAT, is defined as follows:

Value Added Tax (VAT) is a form of indirect tax applied to the value added at each stage of production (primary, manufacturing, wholesale and retail). This tax is much like the sales tax paid in the United States. VAT may be calculated by the subtraction method or credit method. The subtraction method applies the tax to the difference between the value of the purchases and the value of outputs. The credit method applies the tax rate to total sales and then gives each member of the distribution channel a rate adjusted credit on purchases. The European Union, Japan and some South American countries assess VAT at a rate of 15-25 percent.

The Fair Tax, or a consumption based tax, is similar in that it is a “progressive national retail sales tax”, one which “replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.”

The VAT, however, charges a tax at every stage, which causes a rise in prices for consumers, who, in the U.S. are still subject to state and local sales taxes. The Fair Tax is charged at the time of purchase and stop-gaps are in place to insure those that are in lower-income brackets are safeguarded.

Why is the VAT being considered? The cost of the proposed Health Care Reform by the Obama Administration and Congress is so costly that the current Income Tax would not be sufficient to foot the bill. Currently, the Internal Revenue Service, has experienced a loss in revenue of 34% this year, due to the high number of unemployed not paying into the system. The net result is an increased inability to pay for programs already in place, let alone new programs being suggested.

The problem with the current Administration and simpatico legislature adding a VAT as part of a reform of the TAX system is that there is no mention of this type of tax replacing the Income Tax; rather, it is an addition. Also, there are no safeguards in place for those consumers on fixed incomes. Those living in states that have both income and sales taxes in place, yet are seeking ways to pay for continued state and federal mandated programs (see Massachusetts – entitlements and corruption), will suffer considerably.

The only solution is for the government to curb spending, overhaul the way in which government agencies are budgeted, and cut earmarks entirely. The current method for disbursement of budget funds to government agencies demands that each department spend the entire budget, should a department come in under budget for any fiscal year, they may be penalized by losing funds the following year. This method currently in place produces waste, an alternate approach would be to reward those agencies and/or employees that find methods of cutting their department’s budget each year with a bonus, the savings could be added to the following year’s budget, with no loss of budget funds for that particular agency. This would save the taxpayers untold millions, and provide incentives for those agencies to consistently come in under budget.

The Stimulus Bill passed by the Administration has created temporary jobs, without producing one private sector job. In the States that are hardest hit by the current recession, such as Massachusetts, continue to exploit their citizens with round after round of new taxes. Tim Geithner recently visited with Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, and said that the economic plan is working, specifically the $780 Billion that is being spent to stimulate the economy. Not everyone in Massachusetts is in agreement. The Massachusetts GOP dismissed theses claims, citing that the stimulus has not helped create jobs in the entitlement rich, debt ridden Commonwealth. The Executive Director for the MassGOP, Nick Connors said: "The reckless spending of the Obama Administration has not created the jobs that were promised, and Massachusetts is proof of that. Our unemployment rate is 8 percent and the only new jobs being created are in state government, which has added 2,000 new soft landings for Patrick-Murray Administration supporters. Families and small businesses in Massachusetts are hurting, and Governor Patrick and the Democrats are trying to squeeze even higher taxes out of them to fund pension abuse and do-nothing state jobs. If Geithner and Obama want to help the people of Massachusetts, they'll tell the Massachusetts Democrats to clean up Beacon Hill, and they will return the stimulus money to the taxpayers by lowering their federal taxes."

What Mr. Connors is suggesting is Tax Cuts, which have been proven over time, and under varied administrations (Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush) to be most effective as a stimulus. With a VAT on the table, in addition to the current Income Tax, (on a Federal Level), the burden on the tax payer would be unbearable, and for those on fixed incomes, the quality of life would be untenable.