Red State, American Thinker, Joey Smith and Reliapundit provide anecdotal and quantitative evidence that would appear to confirm a decided bias against dealers who donated to GOP causes or to anti-Obama Democrats.
Special note for moonbats: no one here is saying that the sole criterion for closing a dealership was partisanship. What we ask is: does it seem odd that the list of closed dealerships appears to have contributed a grand total of $200 to Barack Obama and millions to GOP candidates/causes?
Quote from an attorney who Deposed Chrysler's president last week: "It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers... It really wasn't Chrysler's decision. They are under enormous pressure from the President's automotive task force."
Late night updates from Joey Smith and Thomas Lamb: Large Democrat Donor groups not only remain open in all locations, but have their competition eliminated... and/or can purchase for pennies on the dollar.
#2
That is what tyrants/socialists do. Destroy those who don't walk lock step with you. Wait until the first Kenyan Dictator to be voted in as POTUS gets control of the banks.
#3
The Chicago way. But I'd like to see a more thorough analysis, including of the list of non-shuttered ones, before I got alarmed. 4 histograms for starters: $$ contributed to GOP and to donks; for closed and open.
Posted by: James ||
05/27/2009 20:17 Comments ||
Top||
#4
if true, a crushing scandal
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/27/2009 20:30 Comments ||
Top||
#5
if true, a crushing scandal
If the media chooses to investigate and report it.
#6
some will, just to get pageviews, then the rest will reluctantly follow. then the deluge
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/27/2009 21:22 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Flort, he pretty much has control already. (See the TARP fund debacle, and him making them cave on the automaker bankruptcy proceedings with their bonds.)
Massachusetts took a stab at universal care by requiring every resident to buy health insurance, with the state subsidizing the premiums. The annual cost of Commonwealth Care, originally pegged at $245 million, will be $1.3 billion this year. Consequently, the state's health-care costs have spiked 42 percent in three years, and today, health- care spending is 33 percent above the national average.
Now The Boston Globe reports that even though Massachusetts has more doctors per capita than any state, waiting periods to see medical specialists for routine care have grown, again because of Commonwealth Care. The average wait for a specialist now is 50 days; for a family doctor, it's 63, while the average woman who thinks she's pregnant doesn't get to see an obstetrician-gynecologist until her second trimester. But for the busiest physicians, the wait can be as much as a year, simply because narcissistic socialist politicians fancied themselves better qualified to run the state's heath-care system than people with many years of training and experience. And despite the enormous effort and expense, Massachusetts still has failed to achieve universal coverage.
The longer waits, of course, are the consequence of hundreds of thousands of newly insured residents descending on the health-care system. As Dr. Gene Lindsey, president of Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates of Boston describes it: "We had a bus that was pretty full, and then we invited more people on the bus. Now people are standing in the aisles." For 50, 63, sometimes 365 days. More ominously, the independent consultants whose recent report quantified the longer waits said the development "may signal what could happen nationally in the event that access to health care is expanded" via Obamacare.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/27/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
E-Mail||
[336063 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Let's see now, if it take a year to see a popular abortion doctor about a man-caused pregency termination ... Maybe a vote for government health care could be a vote for right to life.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
05/27/2009 0:14 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Its a shame most will never hear about the utter failure "Romneycare" has become.
#3
You forget Richard that Obama is a strong supporter of Infanticide. He voted twice that babies who somehow survived their mother's (and her Doctor's) attempt to murder them should be left to die.
So you can see that even after waiting a year to see an abortionist - they will still have their rights not to be bothered with a child protected.
#4
No, for true emergencies, like a heart attack, an unexpected pregnancy that needs to be terminated, and so on, there will be no waiting. /sarcasm
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
05/27/2009 7:41 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Can mass importation of Pakistani doctors be far behind?
Posted by: ed ||
05/27/2009 7:44 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Ed is exactly right.
In order to make BambiCare work, we will need many, many more primary care doctors. We don't have enough American-trained docs who want to do that, and our medical school output is capped (about 15K per year).
We will be importing doctors from abroad to meet the need. Not only does that create problems for us, it creates problems for the countries from which we import said doctors, since it strips them of their best and brightest. It's another form of imperialism.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/27/2009 9:39 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"The longer waits, of course, are the consequence of hundreds of thousands of newly insured residents descending on the health-care system. "
I'm not sure everyone is going to think this is a bad thing because lots of people who weren't getting health care are now getting it.
One point that needs clarification is whether now that everyone is insured, are emergency room visits down because people aren't using them for primary care providers.
Also,instead of importing pakistani docs, we could use physician assistants for primary care doctors. You don't need an M.D. for most things.
#9
I'm not sure everyone is going to think this is a bad thing because lots of people who weren't getting health care are now getting it.
Have to be careful with these numbers. Plenty of these people had access to some kind of coverage before and switched.
You do raise a good point, however. From the socialist point of view the situation has improved if *everyone* now has coverage, even if overall quality of coverage goes way, way down.
#10
...narcissistic socialist politicians fancied themselves better qualified to run the state's heath-care system than people with many years of training and experience.
I don't think I'd classify Mitt as a "narcissistic socialist politician". I would classify him as a first class panderer. Usually towards people that do him absolutely no good.
And in this state, anything the government gets it's hands on just becomes another patronage haven with a motto of "don't kill the job". Quality and cost be damned.
House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, South Carolina Democrat and a former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, is leading an effort to petition the Treasury Department to bailout minority-owned broadcasting businesses.
Mr. Clyburn's effort is supported by several of his House Democratic colleagues, such as Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Charles B. Rangel of New York.
"Like so many businesses caught in the maw of the most severe recession and contraction of credit since the Great Depression, minority broadcasters are not failing businesses looking for a free pass," they wrote in a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. "They are looking for continued access to capital to continue their otherwise fundamentally sound operations. And while many jobs are at stake, a more important principle - the government's fundamental interest in promoting a diversity of voices, including service to underserved communities - is severely threatened."
The group asked that Treasury create a new lending program for minority broadcasters, like the government did to assist the auto industry and asked Mr. Geithner to respond to the letter by June 5.
Other signers of the letter include Democratic Reps. Bobby L. Rush of Illinois, Edolphus Towns of New York, Maurice D. Hinchey of New York, Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Maxine Waters of California, Gregory W. Meeks of New York, G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina, Barbara Lee of California, Lynn Woolsey of California and Bennie Thompson of Mississippi.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/27/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
E-Mail||
[336063 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So, when does the government start dictating content? It has to follow.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
05/27/2009 0:09 Comments ||
Top||
#2
So in other words they are going to award bailouts according to the color of the owner's skin.
Now what is the definition of Racism again? I forgot.
#8
I think its a fantastic idea. In fact, I think they should spend like never before- to the point where we lose our AAA credit rating and HAVE to change the way we do things here. It will suck out loud for a while, but that's the only way to disassemble the machine. Otherwise its business as usual, all the way down the crapper.
#10
In fact, I think they should spend like never before- to the point where we lose our AAA credit rating and HAVE to change the way we do things here.
Maryland couldn't balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were "willing and able to pay their fair share." The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it."
One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates.
No doubt the majority of that loss in millionaire filings results from the recession. However, this is one reason that depending on the rich to finance government is so ill-advised: Progressive tax rates create mountains of cash during good times that vanish during recessions. For evidence, consult California, New York and New Jersey (see here).
The Maryland state revenue office says it's "way too early" to tell how many millionaires moved out of the state when the tax rates rose. But no one disputes that some rich filers did leave. It's easier than the redistributionists think. Christopher Summers, president of the Maryland Public Policy Institute, notes: "Marylanders with high incomes typically own second homes in tax friendlier states like Florida, Delaware, South Carolina and Virginia. So it's easy for them to change their residency."
All of this means that the burden of paying for bloated government in Annapolis will fall on the middle class. Thanks to the futility of soaking the rich, these working families will now pay Mr. O'Malley's "fair share."
Posted by: Fred ||
05/27/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
E-Mail||
[336071 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The obvious solution: prevent them from leaving! When freedom gets in the way of the important things, then it needs to be reduced.
#2
Nah, simply consficate their wealth, all money is the Government's anyway, we just get to use it for a short while. (Sarc)
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
05/27/2009 5:20 Comments ||
Top||
#3
...Don't laugh - a week or so back, I read an article (and it may have even been here at the 'Burg) where one state faced with the same situation suggested that they would send the people who moved tax bills anyways for the amount they would have paid if they had stayed.
No more out there than anything else...
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
05/27/2009 6:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The obvious solution: prevent them from leaving! When freedom gets in the way of the important things, then it needs to be reduced.
Ah, yes, been done before. Bounding a person to the land for production while others run and operate what passes as government management.
#5
Some of the loss of income may be because people are earning less, due to the recession and market losses. The obvious solution there is to tax what they would have made under ideal conditions. After all, when the legislators budgeted the spending, they assumed that the growing economy would continue to grow, so the rich people should pay for it.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
05/27/2009 7:48 Comments ||
Top||
#6
They are not moving. Not as many are making the high incomes anymore. This is what happens when the top 10% of earners pay 70+% of income taxes.
IRS tax revenue falls along with taxpayers' income Federal tax revenue plunged $138 billion, or 34%, in April vs. a year ago the biggest April drop since 1981, a study released Tuesday by the American Institute for Economic Research says.
When the economy slumps, so does tax revenue, and this recession has been no different, says Kerry Lynch, senior fellow at the AIER and author of the study. "It illustrates how severe the recession has been."
For example, 6 million people lost jobs in the 12 months ended in April and that means far fewer dollars from income taxes. Income tax revenue dropped 44% from a year ago.
Via InstaPundit
Posted by: ed ||
05/27/2009 10:35 Comments ||
Top||
#7
companies should be encourage to only layoff people who do not work and/or pay taxes. This would keep the tax revenue high during recessions.
Sen. Roland Burris was recorded on an FBI wiretap suggesting that he could write a check to former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's campaign before the ousted governor appointed Burris to the Senate.
The details of the conversation emerged after a federal judge said Tuesday he would allow the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee to hear a federal wiretap of the former governor's brother, Rob, having a fund-raising conversation with Burris. Rob Blagojevich was running the campaign fund at the time.
During the brief conversation, Burris said he feared he would catch hell with the public and admitted contributions to Blagojevich would look bad, but also that he clearly wanted President Barack Obama's former U.S. Senate seat.
The 10 pages of transcript reveal a Burris who foresaw exactly why so many people would be outraged by the political dance he was doing with Rod Blagojevich. But as CBS 2 Political Editor Mike Flannery reports, Burris went right ahead and did it anyway.
Sources tell CBS 2 the wiretapped phone conversation occurred on Nov. 18 while Blagojevich was still governor and before he named Burris to Obama's vacated seat.
On the tape, Burris suggests that he could contribute, or have associates contribute, money to the Blagojevich campaign. Burris also expresses clear desire to be appointed to the U.S. Senate.
Burris' lawyer, Timothy Wright told CBS 2 that after that conversation, Burris decided against making any contribution. "I think what it shows is he did not pay to play. And what he told was the truth. And I think that, if anything, this exonerates him, and hopefully take a step to repairing a reputation that I think was unfairly ruined," Wright said.
In February, this is how Burris described what he told Robert Blagojevich when Rob called to ask Burris to help the governor's campaign fund: "I made it very clear to him that I would not contribute, that it would be inappropriate and a major conflict, because I had expressed an interest in the Senate seat," Burris said.
But the FBI transcript tells another story. Burris did, indeed, express concern about how it would look to the public, telling Robert Blagojevich, when he called: "It has so many negative connotations that Burris is trying to buy an appointment... from the governor... for the Senate seat."
At another point, Burris told Robert Blagojevich: "God knows, number one, I wanna help Rod. Number two, I also wanna, you know, hope I get that appointment."
Rob Blagojevich: "If you guys can just write checks, that'd be fine."
Burris: "I will personally do something, okay."
Rob Blagojevich: "Okay. Alright, Roland."
Burris: "And it'll be done before the 15th of December."
Rob Blagojevich: "Hey, you're a good friend. I'll pass on your message."
Burris: "Please do and... tell Rod to keep me in mind for that seat, would ya. (chuckles)"
Posted by: Fred ||
05/27/2009 03:15 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
E-Mail||
[336063 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sounds to me like he weaseled,
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
05/27/2009 5:17 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Color me surprised. /sarcasm
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
05/27/2009 7:37 Comments ||
Top||
Just four months in office, President Barack Obama and his White House are taking steps to shore up Democratic Congressional majorities in next year's midterm elections.
This month, the president tried -- but failed -- to recruit a high-profile candidate for a Senate contest in North Carolina. He stepped in to head off a primary battle for the New York Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton. He promised to back Sen. Arlen Specter, the Republican-turned Democrat, if a Democratic challenger emerged. And this week he will go to Las Vegas and Los Angeles to raise cash for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Democratic National Committee.
Since Ronald Reagan, every president has had a political office and has intervened in midterm elections. Obama aides say that with such a full legislative plate, politics is hardly a focus. "We've got our hands full with a thousand other things," senior White House adviser David Axelrod said Monday.
But with a chief of staff like Rahm Emanuel and a political operator like Mr. Axelrod in the West Wing, Democrats expect the help. Mr. Emanuel comes from the political crucible of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and saw the devastation wrought by the 1994 Republican sweep on the last president he worked for, Bill Clinton. Mr. Axelrod has deep ties to the DCCC.
"There's a confluence of expertise in politics, policy and making things happen," said Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
No one anticipates the Democrats losing control of Congress. Indeed, in the Senate, the Republicans are the ones on the defense, with endangered seats in Missouri, New Hampshire, Kentucky and Ohio. Only one Democratic seat, Sen. Christopher Dodd's in Connecticut, currently is considered a toss-up.
Democrats in the Senate have a shot at solidifying their ability to overcome filibusters or delaying tactics with 60 or more Senators voting with them. But with unemployment near 9% and Republicans gaining traction on national-security issues, the winds could shift quickly. Appointed senators in Colorado, Illinois, New York and Delaware have yet to prove their appeal. And the president's aggressive agenda -- including a health-care overhaul and a national energy strategy -- could fracture the Democrats' left flank from its nervous center.
"We're all aware that the landscape can change pretty quickly in politics. What seems promising today can be less promising tomorrow," Mr. Axelrod said.
The White House's willingness to engage emerged with a surprising bang. Democratic campaign operatives grumbled that Mr. Obama got involved in a special House election in upstate New York both late and grudgingly. But at the insistence of Sens. Menendez, Charles Schumer (D., N.Y) and Kirsten Gillibrand herself, Mr. Obama stepped in this month to head off a primary challenge from Rep. Steve Israel to Ms. Gillibrand's New York Senate race next year.
The Tuesday fund-raiser for Senate Majority Leader Reid in Las Vegas is expected to haul in more than $1 million. Facing poor poll numbers, Mr. Reid approached Mr. Emanuel more than two months ago, looking for payback after he helped deliver for President Obama a 12-point win in Nevada in November, said Reid spokesman Jon Summers.
Among the hosts at the Beverly Hilton in Los Angeles Wednesday for the Democratic National Committee fund-raiser will be Hollywood moguls Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen. Entry will set back a couple $30,400.
On Friday, Mr. Obama sneaked in a plug for Sen. Dodd at a Rose Garden signing ceremony for a law restraining credit-card companies. Mr. Dodd "spent an entire career fighting against special interests and fighting for ordinary people," Mr. Obama said of the banking committee chairman.
Mr. Obama tried unsuccessfully to recruit North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper to take on Sen. Richard Burr next year, meeting with him at the White House in mid-May, just days before Mr. Cooper bowed out.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/27/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
E-Mail||
[336063 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Campaign again? Sure! That's what he does best!
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/27/2009 6:02 Comments ||
Top||
#2
By mid-term election time Obama's support will be a net negative.
#4
"All Obama does is campaign. All the MSM talks about is his continuing campaign. Meanwhile, ignore what's really happening."
Therein lies the problem. If he and the MSM keep up the current level of 'emotional', 'detached' and positive rhetoric, the Dems will expand their hold in 2010. We have been trained to be a nation of sheep by our public schools and major media.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
05/27/2009 16:59 Comments ||
Top||
Gov. Jon Corzine's bid for a second term is in trouble over New Jersey's battered economy, angry homeowners who face rising property taxes, and polls showing Republicans beating him in November.
The former Wall Street financier who spent more than $50 million of his own money to capture the governorship has seen his disapproval scores rise to 54 percent, the highest ever measured for a New Jersey governor, according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll.
The growing dissatisfaction has opened up an opportunity for Republicans to win back a state that has been in Democratic hands since 2002 but is now considered a tossup by election analysts. Republicans were also leading in this fall's only other governor's race - in Virginia, where Democrats have held the Statehouse for the past eight years.
If Republicans succeed in recapturing both governorships, it would give their tarnished party brand a major boost as they prepare for the midterm elections in 2010 and the presidential election two years later.
Two Republicans are vying for their party's nomination to take on Mr. Corzine: former U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie, the acknowledged front-runner, and former Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan. A Quinnipiac survey of likely voters showed Mr. Christie leading by 23 points.
In general election matchups, the May 20 poll showed Mr. Christie leading Mr. Corzine 45 percent to 38 percent, and Mr. Lonegan, a conservative former small-town mayor, narrowly ahead of the governor by 42 percent to 40 percent.
"The [heavily Democratic] state's bent helps Corzine, but even that may not be enough to save him. In a state where Republicans have fallen off the cliff, Christie has a serious shot of winning," the Rothenberg Political Report, which tracks the elections, said last week.
Mr. Christie has made a reputation for himself as a corruption fighter in the state, winning the convictions of some 130 elected officials and employees, Democrats and Republicans alike.
Mr. Lonegan, who is widely seen as the more conservative of the two, is championing a flat tax that the Christie campaign says will raise taxes on 70 percent of the state's residents.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/27/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
E-Mail||
[336062 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
