Displaying posts categorized under

POLITICS

Five for Freedom Bringing government spending under control. By Ted Cruz

At the last Republican presidential debate, I presented the Simple Flat Tax — which, for a family of four, exempts the first $36,000 from all income tax, and above that amount collects one low rate of 10 percent for all Americans. It eliminates the death tax, the payroll tax, the corporate income tax, and the Obamacare taxes; ends the corporate carve-outs and loopholes; and requires every business to pay the same simple business flat tax of 16 percent. That plan will unleash unprecedented growth, create millions of new jobs, raise after-tax incomes for all income levels by double-digit percentages — and abolish the IRS as we know it.

But eliminating the IRS is only the first step in my plan to break apart the federal leviathan that has ruled Washington and crept into our lives. We can’t stop there. In addition to eliminating the IRS, a Cruz administration will abolish four cabinet agencies. And we will sharply reduce the alphabet soup of government entities, beginning with the ABCs that should not exist in the first place: The Agencies, Bureaus, Commissions, and other programs that are constitutionally illegitimate and harmful to American households and businesses. It’s time to return to a federal government that abides by our constitutional framework and strips power from unelected bureaucrats.

What I Learned at Tuesday’s Debate by Roger L Simon

Here’s what I learned at Tuesday night’s Fox Business Republican debate.

1. If John Kasich is elected president, I will sell my television set. I’ve already seen The Hunchback of Notre Dame at least a dozen times.

2. Carly Fiorina is a good debater. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are even better debaters.

3. I wouldn’t want to be in a foxhole with Rand Paul.

4. The biggest spendthrifts in America are Jeb Bush bundlers.

5. Ben Carson talks slowly.

6. Donald Trump likes to hang out in green rooms.

In other words, nothing much new. Still it was entertaining. Moderators Neil Cavuto, Maria Bartiromo and Gerard Baker did a fine job, devoid of self-promotion and thus far superior to their predecessors at the other networks. It wasn’t their fault it wasn’t all that substantive in the end. It never is. It’s the nature of the format. Eight is still too many people. How about four or five next time?

Who won? The New York Times said Rand Paul, which means he didn’t. Frank Luntz’s focus group of actual New Hampshire Republican voters gave it to Rubio in a walk. I tend to agree, with Cruz a close second. Marc Thiessen said on The Kelly File that Rubio would be the strongest GOP candidate in the general because he would seem like JFK debating Hillary’s Nixon. Actually, I think Hilary’s worse than Nixon, but he’s got a point.

Signs emerge FBI investigation of Hillary emails has moved to a new, more serious stage By Thomas Lifson

Momentum is a concept that applies to criminal investigations almost as much as it does to sports teams. And from the signs available, it looks as if the probe into potential criminality in the Hillary email scandal has got the Big Mo.

Despite the FBI’s efforts to remain tight-lipped over the ongoing investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server, it looks as though substantial resources are being devoted, so that a political kill of the query would be difficult to justify if push comes to shove. Politico has been interviewing as many people as it can, both on and off the record, to get a sense of where theinvestigation is leading, and the indications are that Hillary should be worried. Rachel Bade writes:

The FBI’s recent moves suggest that its inquiry could have evolved from the preliminary fact-finding stage that the agency launches when it receives a credible referral, according to former FBI and DOJ officials inteviewed [sic] by POLITICO.

“This sounds to me like it’s more than a preliminary inquiry; it sounds like a full-blown investigation,” said Tom Fuentes, former assistant director of the FBI. “When you have this amount of resources going into it …. I think it’s at the investigative level.”

Ted Cruz proposes eliminating Energy, HUD, Commerce, Education, IRS By Ed Straker

It’s sad watching most Republican candidates promise to make cuts in federal spending without ever actually telling us where the cuts would occur. They mention some big number and then promise us that over eight or ten years it would be cut. But their claims have about as much credibility as Carly Fiorina’s vague tax plan, which is mysteriously floating somewhere on YouTube.

All that changed last night, however, when Ted Cruz called for the elimination of the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Commerce, and Education, as well as the IRS. The liberal media will be focusing on the fact that he mentioned eliminating Commerce twice. I prefer to focus on the merits of what he has announced.

The Department of Energy. We have a Department of Energy that generates no energy. Instead, the DOE distributes nearly $30 billion (as of 2012) to research “clean” energy. In other words, it’s a slush fund for Democratic cronies like Solyndra who want taxpayer funding for windmills and solar panel technology that is hopelessly uneconomical. Here’s an idea: let the private sector research energy alternatives. They did a fine job of it long before the DOE came along. Cruz is right to call for its elimination.

The GOP on Economics The good, the bad, and the ugly at the fourth presidential debate.

Tuesday night’s Republican presidential debate wasn’t the most entertaining, but it was by far the most educational. The two-hour session gave the candidates a chance to critique the Obama record, as well as tease out some policy differences in illuminating ways.

Start with trade, which showcased Donald Trump. “I love trade. I’m a free trader, 100%,” said the businessman, after declaring that he opposed the only free-trade deal currently on offer, the U.S. agreement with 11 other Pacific nations.

Mr. Trump called it a “terrible deal,” though it wasn’t obvious that he has any idea what’s in it. His one specific criticism was its failure to deal with Chinese currency manipulation. But it took Rand Paul to point out that China isn’t part of the deal and would be happy if the agreement collapsed so the U.S. would have less economic influence in Asia.

Mr. Trump said on these pages Tuesday that he would label China a currency manipulator on his first day as President, triggering tariffs on thousands of Chinese goods. The businessman thinks economic mercantilism is a political winner, but we doubt that starting a trade war that raises prices for Americans would turn out to be popular. Many of Mr. Trump’s supporters care more about his take-charge attitude than his policies, but GOP voters are going to have to decide if they want to nominate their most protectionist nominee since Hoover.

Reported EU Trade Rule Singles Israel Out for Discrimination By Marco Rubio —

The European Union is poised to make a significant mistake this week — one that will harm its relations with the United States, politicize international trade, undermine economic cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians, and reward Palestinians who reject peace with Israel.

The EU will reportedly release a new trade rule that singles out Israel — and only Israel — for discriminatory treatment. The rule requires products sold in Europe and produced in what the EU considers “Israeli-occupied territories” to be specially labeled. The labels are intended to encourage Europeans to boycott Israeli products, and to stoke European animosity toward Israel — which is already at disturbingly high levels. There are more than 200 disputed territories worldwide and yet European leaders have chosen to single out only the Jewish state for this economic sanction.

The rule is grossly unjust. It makes a mockery of the EU’s claimed commitment to international law. It punishes Israel for Palestinian leaders’ repeated rejection of statehood offers and for their ongoing refusal to negotiate. In the midst of a new wave of Palestinian terror, the EU seeks to punish Israel while taking no action against Palestinians inciting and perpetrating murder.

Why would Bill Kristol want to make a Hillary victory inevitable? By Mike Ford

Last week in an article titled “Ben Carson Reconsidered,” destined for the November 16 print edition of The Weekly Standard, “conservative” pundit William Kristol shows just how willing he is to risk a Hillary Clinton presidency and all its concomitant damage. He’s willing to risk such simply to prevent an outsider from ascending to that office. In a two (internet)-page article, Dr. Kristol excoriates Donald Trump while damning Dr. Ben Carson with faint praise. Here is his final statement:

So while Carson probably won’t and likely shouldn’t be the nominee, the Republican party is better for his candidacy. And if the unthinkable happens and Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination, we may take off a few days next year to gather ballot access signatures for the 2016 independent ticket of Carson-Webb, or Webb-Carson.

Bernie Sanders Just Keeps Retracting the Stupid Things He Says “I disagree with Hillary Clinton on virtually everything.” Daniel Greenfield

Bernie Sanders is sinking in the polls faster than a Socialist Titanic and so that means he’s saying more crazy things than usual. And considering that Bernie Sanders tries to say a dozen crazy things before breakfast, that’s a lot.

FeeltheBern was against taking Hillary’s emails seriously before he was for it. Also he completely disagrees with Hillary on everything. Virtually everything.

Sanders was also asked about his recent comment to the Boston Globe, saying, “I disagree with Hillary Clinton on virtually everything.”

Like the color of the sky. And how many jelly beans are in the bowl.

But really, how much disagreement can there be between two radical lefties who both believe that we need a totalitarian government to run our lives? Not that much.

Hillary Clinton, Arms Dealer The dirty deals that put illegal arms shipments into the hands of Libyan jihadists. Arnold Ahlert

In a scathing column Fox News contributor Andrew Napolitano makes the convincing case that Hillary Clinton sold weapons to Libya in a direction violation of the U.N. arms embargo, and then lied about it under oath during her testimony before the House Select Committee on Benghazi Oct. 22.

“To pursue her goal of a ‘democratic’ government there, Clinton, along with Obama and a dozen or so members of Congress from both houses and both political parties, decided she should break the law by permitting U.S. arms dealers to violate the U.N. arms embargo and arm Libyan rebels whom she hoped would one day run the new government,” Napolitano explains. “So she exercised her authority as secretary of state to authorize the shipment of American-made arms to Qatar, a country beholden to the Muslim Brotherhood and friendly to the Libyan rebels and a country the U.S. had no business arming—unless the purpose of doing so was for the arms to be transferred to the rebels.”

Memos recovered from the incinerated compound in Benghazi give great weight to the assertion. The documents were obtained by the Washington Times and they reveal the American diplomats stationed there were keeping track of numerous potential U.S.-sanctioned weapons shipments aimed at arming our allies, “one or more of which were destined for the Transitional National Council, the Libyan movement that was seeking to oust Gadhafi and form a new government,” the paper reports.

Ben Carson: Where Was the Media’s Interest in Obama’s Relation to the Rev. Wright, Frank Davis, Bill Ayers . . . ? By John Fund

It’s been less than two weeks since CNBC’s train wreck of a debate exposed just how much of a double standard the mainstream media can have against GOP presidential candidates.

Now a new example comes in the attack on Ben Carson for saying in his autobiography that he was offered a full scholarship to West Point. In a news conference on Friday, Carson said the offer from Army officials was informal and he never in fact applied to the military academy, which is how he described it in his book Gifted Hands, first published in 1990:

I was offered a full scholarship to West Point. I didn’t refuse the scholarship outright, but I let them know a military career wasn’t where I saw myself going. . . . As overjoyed as I felt to be offered such a scholarship, I wasn’t really tempted. . . . I wanted to be a doctor. . . . Each college required a ten-dollar non-returnable entrance fee sent with the application. I had exactly ten, so I could apply to only one.

Carson has also been questioned by CNN about why several people who knew him growing up don’t recall that he had exhibited anger or violence. Carson noted that most of the people the media has talked to knew him in high school, and that his last “violent episode” occurred in the ninth grade, before he had a religious conversion. Carson said that he did try to stab someone, “a relative who does not want to be subjected to the media.”

RELATED: Sorry, Media, You Won’t Destroy Ben Carson

But Carson’s news conference was most memorable for his willingness to push back against the media:

I do not remember this level of scrutiny for one President Barack Obama when he was running. In fact I remember just the opposite. I remember people saying, ‘Oh, we won’t really talk about that. We won’t talk about that relationship. Well, Frank Marshall Davis, well, we don’t want to talk about that. Bernardine Dohrn, Bill Ayers, well he don’t really know him. All the things that Jeremiah Wright was saying, oh, not a big problem.