Democrat Govenor calls for suspention of elections

Original Post: USA News

Why North Carolina's Perdue Is the Most Endangered Governor

With Washington more unpopular than ever, suggesting we cancel the 2012 congressional elections is not an idea voters will embrace. Yet that's exact what Gov. Bev Perdue did when addressing the Rotary Club of Cary, N.C., this week.

"I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that."

The words spread like wildfire, leading the Drudge Report and receiving significant airplay on both the Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh radio programs.

Predictably, this lead to the "just kidding" defense.

"Governor Perdue was obviously using hyperbole to highlight what we can all agree is a serious problem: Washington politicians who focus on their own election instead of what's best for the people they serve," said a Perdue spokesperson, hoping to reassure anyone who had not actually heard the comments.

The audio, however, gives no impression that Perdue was joking, or, as Perdue herself later claimed, "sarcastic." As the Charlotte Observer noted, "her tone was level and she asked others to support her on the idea." One neither hears laughter, nor applause (voters tend to take their constitutionally-protected right to hold politicians accountable at the ballot box rather seriously).

Were this a one-off comment, the Perdue team could chalk it up to an errant comment with no real political impact.

This isn't the first time Perdue has forced her team to make bizarre explanations. In mid-April, when the state was hit with massive storms that necessitated the declaration of a state of emergency, the governor went missing. Perdue, her staff explained, was out of town for a "family obligation." The next day, however, the story changed. Perdue, her staff then claimed, was in Kentucky to visit Gov. Steve Beshear and attend the Toyota Blue Grass Stakes, a popular thoroughbred horse race—only to deny the following day that Perdue had attended the race.

Confused? So were North Carolina voters and the media.

"Perdue's spokespeople still don't agree on where Governor was Saturday during storm," headlined a WWAY-TV story asking, "why the governor's communications staff seemed so unorganized Saturday when most of the state knew these deadly storms were headed our way at least two days in advance." (While the governor's office feels it has moved on from the controversy, North Carolina Republicans believe there may be another horse-shoe to drop.)

And if there have been problems for what Perdue (and staff) has said, so, too, has Perdue found herself in hot water for things she hasn't said.

Perdue has refused to state a position on an amendment to the state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage and civil unions, despite her involvement in moving the vote from the November elections to the May primaries.

And despite the aggressive efforts of a revitalized North Carolina Republican Party, Perdue refuses to weigh in on the National Labor Relations Board blocking Boeing Co. from shifting jobs to a nonunion plant in South Carolina, an important issue regionally and one that former North Carolina Democratic Party Chair David Young declared in the Charlotte Observer, "Yes, NLRB-Boeing Hurts N.C."

With labor unions already riled over the 2012 Democratic National Convention being held in the right-to-work state, perhaps Perdue does not want to anger them further. But Perdue's record on jobs may-be what most threatens hers.

Since she took office in January, 2009, unemployment in North Carolina has increased from 9.2 percent to 10.4 percent last month—a loss of more than 137,000 jobs in the state.

Voter reaction has been harsh. A High Point University poll released this week shows Governor Perdue with 37 percent approval and 46 percent disapproval—effectively wiping out the small bump she received from her response to Hurricane Irene—despite Democrats outnumbering Republicans, as of Wednesday, by 775,459 registered voters.

As the poll shows, voter dissatisfaction with President Barack Obama, who narrowly carried the Tar Heel State in 2008, is at critical mass with 53 percent of respondents disapproving of his job performance. In other words, Perdue, who doesn't have much to run on herself, can't depend on long coattails.

Traditionally, state elections have favored Democrats; North Carolina Republicans have not elected a governor since 1988. But with voter anger—and unemployment—mounting, unforced errors such as the constantly changing Kentucky alibi and this week's comments only cement Perdue's position as the most endangered incumbent governor in the nation.

Perhaps, then, it's no wonder Perdue suggested suspending elections—and what should surprise us is that Perdue wasn't talking about her own.

Former Obama budget manager calls for less Democracy

Too Much of a Good Thing. Why we need less democracy.

Peter Orszag

In an 1814 letter to John Taylor, John Adams wrote that “there never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” That may read today like an overstatement, but it is certainly true that our democracy finds itself facing a deep challenge: During my recent stint in the Obama administration as director of the Office of Management and Budget, it was clear to me that the country’s political polarization was growing worse—harming Washington’s ability to do the basic, necessary work of governing. If you need confirmation of this, look no further than the recent debt-limit debacle, which clearly showed that we are becoming two nations governed by a single Congress—and that paralyzing gridlock is the result.

So what to do? To solve the serious problems facing our country, we need to minimize the harm from legislative inertia by relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions. In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic.

Obama follows the very Walker plan he ripped

Original Post: The Hill

Obama plan asks federal workers to contribute more to retirement

By Pete Kasperowicz - 09/19/11 03:56 PM ET

The Obama administration on Monday sent a deficit reduction proposal to Congress that, among other things, asks federal employees to pay slightly more for their retirement packages.

The administration's plan for federal workers was outlined in its proposal titled, "Living Within Our Means and Investing in the Future." In it, the administration acknowledges that the federal pension system needs some reform given that it is increasingly at odds with pension systems in the private sector.

"Over the past several years, there have been significant shifts both in how people work and how their benefits are structured," the proposal says. "Organizations of all sizes have had to reform and alter the retirement benefits they give in order to remain competitive and, in some cases, solvent. As a result, compared to the private sector, the Federal retirement program can seem generous."

The document notes, for example, that the "defined benefit" pensions that many government workers receive are becoming "increasingly rare," and are available to only about 21 percent of all private employees. It also said estimates says private sector employees contribute nearly 50 percent of their retirement savings, while government employees pay just 33 percent.

The size of government pay and benefits has increasingly become a flashpoint for conservatives who believe federal workers are vastly overpaid, particularly at a time when Congress is looking for ways to bring down federal spending.

That said, the administration put forward what it admittedly calls a "modest" proposal -- a 1.2 percent increase in federal employee contributions to their retirement. This increase would be spread out over three years, starting in 2013, and would increase the employees' contributions by 0.4 percent each year for those three years. The proposal estimates that this would save $21 billion over 10 years.

It also calls for broader reform to get at the issue of how to deal with the performance of government workers. This deals with the perception among federal employees that the current system "fails to effectively deal with poor performers and does not reward innovation."

To get at these issues and others, Obama proposes the establishment of a Commission on Federal Public Service Reform, made up of members of Congress and the administration. This commission would develop recommendations on how to reform personnel policies, including "compensation, staff development and mobility, and personnel performance and motivation."

Elsewhere, the proposal calls for some reforms related to military retirees. For example, it calls on new fees for these retirees to help pay for their healthcare coverage, and also calls for a new commission to review military retirement benefits.

And it seeks to limit what it calls the "overpayment of Federal contractor executives." Under current law, federal money can only contribute $750,000 in salaries to executives from companies with annual sales of over $50 million. Obama's plan would lower that to $200,000.

"[T]the Administration believes the Government is reimbursing too much for contractor executives, and the cap's amount cannot be justified," it says.

Congress Considers Bill to Protect Workers from Union Violence

Original Post: NLPC

by Carl Horowitz on Fri, 09/04/2009 - 17:13

Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C.Union members, at times at the behest of their leaders, aren't averse to roughing up opponents in order to win concessions. Employers and especially nonunion employees often find themselves on the receiving end of acts such as assault, extortion and vandalism or the threat of these things. At least one member of Congress, Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., wants federal law to end this behavior. This past May 21, he introduced legislation, the Freedom from Union Violence Act of 2009 (H.R. 2537), that would impose potentially stiff fines and prison sentences on anyone who commits an act of violence or extortion during a labor dispute. The bill was referred in June to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. The unions are intent on keeping the bill bottled up, as they have in previous attempts at such legislation since 1997.

The Freedom from Union Violence Act would amend existing law. It would close a loophole in the Hobbs Act, a 1946 federal law prohibiting robbery or extortion affecting interstate or foreign commerce. Without this amendment, notes Wilson, the Hobbs Act permits "violence and intimidation on behalf of labor unions...if it ruled that such coercion was to further a ‘legitimate' union objective." What he and other supporters are referring to here is a 1973 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Enmons, (410 U.S. 396 [1973]), which interpreted the Hobbs Act as granting this "right" to unions. His measure states:

Whosoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion, or attempts or conspires to do so, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything of this section, shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned for a term of not more than 20 years, or both.

The bill explicitly exempts union conduct that is "incidental to otherwise peaceful picketing during the course of a labor dispute."

Supporters think the measure can't come soon enough. "Lawmakers on Capitol Hill need to send a clear message that any violence or intimidating during labor disagreements will no longer be tolerated," said Jerry Gorski, national chairman of Associated Builders and Contractors, an Arlington, Va.-based trade association of merit shop contractors. "This legislation is long overdue to help protect all workers in the construction industry." And the intimidation is real. This decade has witnessed union terror campaigns, for example, at the Kohler stainless steel sink factory in Searcy, Arkansas (the United Auto Workers); the nonunion Asbestos & Lead Removal Corporation, in Queens, N.Y. (the Laborers); and the AK Steel plant in Mansfield, Ohio (United Steelworkers of America). In the AK Steel case union members at various points detonated pipe bombs in mailboxes, fired gun shots, and assaulted nonunion workers. In one instance, a Steelworkers member was caught and charged with plotting to launch homemade rockets at the plant.

A 506-page report published in 1999 by the John M. Olin Institute for Employment Practice and Policy at George Mason University, "Union Violence: The Record and the Response by Courts, Legislatures, and the NLRB," reveals the extent to which union rank and file will go to terrorize employers, non-member workers, union dissidents and even third parties with no particular stake in the outcome of a strike or other dispute. Rocks, knives, guns, sledgehammers, explosives and bare fists are frequent means of intimidation. From the standpoint of psychological warfare, so are threatening phone calls, letters, emails, menacing stares, and unscheduled "visits" to the homes of targets. Using a database for the period 1975-96 assembled by the Springfield, Va.-based National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR), study authors Armand Thieblot, Thomas Haggard and Herbert Northrup counted 9,785 incidents of criminal acts or threats in 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Union member or official-initiated violence accounted for nearly 250 deaths during this time, 97 of them from a single act of arson at a San Juan, Puerto Rico hotel on December 31, 1986 following a meeting by Teamsters Local 901 to discuss a strike against management. (Three hotel workers pleaded guilty to federal charges several months later in that New Year's Eve holocaust).

Critics of the study claim that the data are unreliable and unfairly lump psychological and actual violence together. Apparently it's ok for psychological violence in critic's minds when anywhere else it'd be considered extortion and intimidation. In a 2001 article for the Texas Law Review, "The Continuing Assault on the Right to Strike," University of Texas law professor Julius Getman and former (Carter-era) Labor Secretary Ray Marshall accuse NILRR and Olin researchers of stacking the deck. "It seems obvious that the methodology employed confuses those strikes most written about with those most violent," the authors wrote. "Further, the Institute includes incidents of "psychological violence; i.e., intimidation, coercion and verbal threats" - terms which it does not bother to define. It seems clear, however, that this definition would include nonviolent civil disobedience of the type used by the civil rights movement and increasingly by the labor movement." Yet the authors' use of phrases such as "seems obvious" and "seems clear" reveals empirical ambiguity on their own part not to mention a view that prosecuting threats of violence is tantamount to depriving strikers of their rights.

The distinction between psychological and actual violence is, at bottom, artificial. By its nature, a threat of violence conveys to the intended target that injury or even death may result in the absence of compliance. Imagine calling Nazi Germany's conquest of Austria or Czechoslovakia "peaceful" because the Germans did not apply military force. Quite obviously, the mere threat of war was enough to induce surrender. This principle holds true for all types of conflict, including labor disputes. If a worker speaks out against a majority union position, and then sees a couple of beefy-looking men staring at him while simulating a slashing motion against their throat with an index finger, you can be sure that dissenter is going to think twice before piping up again. Terror through communication of a body gesture or machine (e.g., phone call) is intended to produce surrender of the will.

This kind of terror is especially prevalent in a group setting such as a picket line where the atmosphere already is confrontational. Here union members and even their bosses may resort to violence. That very likelihood causes many dissenters to recoil rather than serve as the spark for an act of violence of which they might be a victim. Moreover, it's easy for someone contemplating violence in that kind of environment to disavow moral responsibility. Thieblot, Haggard and Northrup explain:

Unlike planned and delegated violence (as in a football game) or aggressive violence deliberately undertaken by one or both sides (as in a war or ambush), the source and origin of violence that breaks out in confrontational settings is uncertain. When rocks start flying in a crowd, it's likely that no one knows or will ever know who cast the first one or what act of insolence or aggression pushed the situation over the edge. Individuals in a melee become caught up in the swirl of events, showing sides of themselves that would remain hidden in more serene settings. These instincts and outcomes are so common that when active groups in confrontation do not turn violent, that fact itself may qualify as news.

The Freedom from Union Violence Act implicitly recognizes the dynamics of intimidation in labor disputes and why it does qualify as violence. Rather than undermine the letter or spirit of the National Labor Relations Act, the measure clarifies the meaning of coercion, and in so doing affirms the commitment of NLRA to a democratic workplace. The measure has been in on-and-off mode ever since 1997, when Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah and Strom Thurmond, R-S.C. first introduced it. Whether or not the problem of union violence is as bad as it was a decade ago, Congress should pass this overdue legislation.

Obama Administration Set to Ban Asthma Inhalers

Original Post: Weekly Standard

Remember how Obama recently waived new ozone regulations at the EPA because they were too costly? Well, it seems that the Obama administration would rather make people with Asthma cough up money than let them make a surely inconsequential contribution to depleting the ozone layer:

Asthma patients who rely on over-the-counter inhalers will need to switch to prescription-only alternatives as part of the federal government's latest attempt to protect the Earth's atmosphere.

The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday patients who use the epinephrine inhalers to treat mild asthma will need to switch by Dec. 31 to other types that do not contain chlorofluorocarbons, an aerosol substance once found in a variety of spray products.

The action is part of an agreement signed by the U.S. and other nations to stop using substances that deplete the ozone layer, a region in the atmosphere that helps block harmful ultraviolet rays from the Sun.

But the switch to a greener inhaler will cost consumers more. Epinephrine inhalers are available via online retailers for around $20, whereas the alternatives, which contain the drug albuterol, range from $30 to $60.

The Atlantic's Megan McArdle, an asthma sufferer, noted a while back that when consumers are forced to use environmentally friendly products they are almost always worse:

Er, industry also knew how to make low-flow toilets, which is why every toilet in my recently renovated rental house clogs at least once a week. They knew how to make more energy efficient dryers, which is why even on high, I have to run every load through the dryer in said house twice. And they knew how to make inexpensive compact flourescent bulbs, which is why my head hurts from the glare emitting from my bedroom lamp. They also knew how to make asthma inhalers without CFCs, which is why I am hoarding old albuterol inhalers that, unlike the new ones, a) significantly improve my breathing and b) do not make me gag. Etc.

Well, tough cookies asthma sufferers! You should have written bigger checks to the Democratic party while you had the chance.

Obama: We’re the Country that Built the Intercontinental Railroad!

Original Post: Lonely Conservative President Obama must have gone off the old ‘prompter while speaking at the bridge that doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of being one of his shovel ready stimulus jobs. His gaffe occurred while talking about all of the great things we used to do here in the United States, and all of the great things they do in China and Europe. But first, here’s Andrew Malcolm’s lead-in.

So here’s how the ex-state senator from the Chicago machine reacts: At an operating cost of $181,000 per hour, he flies Air Force One nearly four hours roundtrip for 17 minutes of remarks touting infrastructure repairs by a bridge that doesn’t need them.

The real reason he’s at the Brent Spence Bridge is because it links the home states of both congressional Republican leaders, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. So Obama can cutely blame Republicans for holding up his jobs bill, even though it’s Nevada Democrat Harry Reid.

Obama turns the empty rhetoric into a pep rally for himself, leading the obedient audience to chant, “Pass this bill! Pass this bill!”

This guy, who will ride around in Secret Service SUVs for the rest of his life, has this thing for railroads that other people should ride in. So, according to the White House transcript (scroll down for full version and related stories), here’s what passes for Obama leadership:

And now, the gaffe! Drum roll, please!

Now, we used to have the best infrastructure in the world here in America. We’re the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad, the Interstate Highway System. We built the Hoover Dam. We built the Grand Central Station.

So how can we now sit back and let China build the best railroads? And let Europe build the best highways? And have Singapore build a nicer airport?

Intercontinental railroad? To where? And what’s this business about China having the best railroads? Really?

Obama's Twitter Disaster

Original Post: WSJ By JAMES FREEMAN

In 2008, reporters gushed about the Obama campaign's brilliant use of the Internet and social media. In the run-up to 2012, a high-profile effort by the re-election campaign to counter critics has become an online bulletin board for jokes at President Obama's expense.

Obama for America, the official campaign organization, recently rolled out AttackWatch.com. The website allows visitors to file reports when someone criticizes the president or his policies and purports to provide "the facts" to counter such "smears." The site's Twitter feed is attracting plenty of reports, but not necessarily the kind that campaign staff was expecting. Related Video

WSJ columnist Mary O'Grady and OpinionJournal.com columnist James Taranto on President Obama's campaign website reporting Republican attacks.

A user identified as Jon G. announced: "There's a new Twitter account making President Obama look like a creepy, authoritarian nutjob: @AttackWatch." Another user identifying himself as Matt Cover tweeted, "Someone told me the stimulus didn't keep unemployment below 8%. That's not true, is it?"

Another concerned citizen reported, "I saw 6 ATM's in an alley, killing a job. It looked like a hate crime!" The site's Twitter page recently featured so many zingers aimed at the president that it was hard to find actual Obama supporters whining about his critics. One tweeter noted that "the GOP won seats in NY and NV . . . I suspect interference by sane people . . . check that out please." Another said, "Hey kids, are mommy and daddy talking bad about Obama? Be sure to report them at #attackwatch."

One movie buff referenced the current Obama scandal over a bankrupt solar energy company that received federal loans: "Solyndra Green is people!"

Watching the attacks has proven to be a favorite pastime for conservatives. We're guessing the Obama campaign staff isn't laughing.

USDA Secretary: We Must ‘Create Appropriate Transition’ for What Americans Eat

(CNSNews.com) - U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told members of the National Restaurant Association on Monday that Americans need to “adjust” their tastes so that they like the kind of food the government believes they should eat—and “we have to make sure that what we do is create the appropriate transition.”

“You know, as we deal with this issue of reducing sodium and sugar, it sounds simple to do, but you all know better than I do, it’s not as simple as it sounds,” said Vilsack.

“It’s going to take time for people’s taste to adjust and they will adjust over time, but it will take some time,” he said. “So, we have to make sure that what we do is create the appropriate transition.

"At the end of the day, though, we've got to deal with this," said Vilsack.

Vilsack’s remarks about Americans’ taste buds came in response to a question about the best way to deal with food waste. He said the Agriculture Department has ongoing research projects to determine how to make nutritious food more appealing so that less of it is wasted.

Vilsack mentioned visiting a Colorado school that was serving children brownies made with black beans. “The kids didn’t even know they were eating a healthier snack,” Vilsack said. I'm sure it's perfectly fine for the government to change the food products that children are eating with out informing anyone. After all, it's not like anyone has food allergies or anything.

The restaurant trade group is working with the USDA to promote the government’s revised dietary guidelines for Americans.

Restaurants that participate in the voluntary Kids LiveWell program commit to offering healthful meal items for children, with a particular focus on increasing consumption of fruit and vegetables, lean protein, whole grains and low-fat dairy, and limiting unhealthy fats, sugars and sodium.

First Lady Michelle Obama has made childhood obesity her signature issue, launching the administration’s “Let’s Move” program which is dedicated to “solving the challenge of childhood obesity within a generation.”

On its website, the “Let’s Move” program says that: “Everyone has a role to play in reducing childhood obesity, including parents, elected officials from all levels of government, schools, health care professionals, faith-based and community-based organizations, and private sector companies.”

President Obama's Tax On Soup Kitchens

Original Post: Majority Leader

Yesterday, it was announced that an astounding 1 in 6 Americans are living in poverty. President Obama's response? To demand a tax on donations to soup kitchens and other charities that help people desperately in need. The President's proposal will impact approximately 40% of all the tax deductible contributions, and essentially penalize soup kitchens, hospitals, and churches that provide essential services to those who need them most. It’s no wonder this tax hike has been rejected on both sides of the aisle.

Background:

US Poverty Rate Swells To Nearly 1 In 6. The ranks of America's poor swelled to almost 1 in 6 people last year, reaching a new high as long-term unemployment left millions of Americans struggling and out of work. The number of uninsured edged up to 49.9 million, the biggest in more than two decades. The Census Bureau's annual report released Tuesday offers a snapshot of the economic well-being of U.S. households for 2010, when joblessness hovered above 9 percent for a second year. It comes at a politically sensitive time for President Barack Obama, who has acknowledged in the midst of a re-election fight that the unemployment rate could persist at high levels through next year. The overall poverty rate climbed to 15.1 percent, or 46.2 million, up from 14.3 percent in 2009. (The Associated Press, 9/13/11)

Ways & Means Ranking Member Sander Levin Has Opposed The President’s Effort To Raise Taxes. Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.), who is the ranking member on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, delivered a speech in June in defense of many of the same tax deductions Obama is now targeting. "In the case of the charitable deduction, one has to keep in mind that the recipients of the contributions include universities, hospitals, churches and soup kitchens that provide critical services to working families," Levin said. (Roll Call, 9/14/11)

Majority Leader Cantor: It Doesn’t Make Sense To Impose Taxes On Charitable Contributions When The Charities Are The Ones Out There Helping People. We have also found out through looking at his tax proposals, or at least the reports, that his tax proposals are going to impose taxes on charitable contributions and in fact impact at least 40 percent of tax deductible charitable contributions. I don’t think there are many Americans right now who think that’s a good idea. The question is why would we want to put an impediment in the way of the charities accessing funding when the charities are the ones out there helping the people in need right now? It doesn’t make sense. (Remarks At The American Action Forum, 9/13/11)

Flashback:

House Ways And Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY): "I Would Never Want To Adversely Affect Anything That Is Charitable Or Good." "President Barack Obama's call to raise taxes on high earners and greenhouse gas polluters met fierce opposition Tuesday from congressional Republicans and also a few Democrats. 'I would never want to adversely affect anything that is charitable or good,' Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said of Obama's call to limit high-income taxpayers' itemized deductions for charitable donations and mortgage interest." (The Associated Press, 3/3/09)

Representative Shelley Berkley (D-NV): It's "A Nonstarter." "Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) called the proposal 'a nonstarter,' telling Geithner: 'I'd like to think that people give out of the goodness of their hearts, but that tax deduction helps to loosen up their heartstrings.' Outside the hearing, Berkley said the proposed tax increase was 'the number one issue' on the minds of her constituents over the weekend. Reminded that the provision is intended to raise hundreds of billions of dollars to finance an expansion of health insurance coverage, Obama's top domestic priority, she said: 'We can find another way.'" (The Washington Post, 3/4/09)

Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT): "I'm Wondering About The Viability Of That Provision." "Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.), the Senate's top tax writer as chairman of the Finance Committee, told Mr. Geithner he was especially concerned about paying for expanded health coverage with a deductions curb that 'has nothing to do with health care.' He added: 'I'm wondering about the viability of that provision.'" (The Wall Street Journal, 3/5/09)

Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ): "I Don't Want To Prejudge Anything, But It Is Certainly One That I Am Having Difficulties With." (The Associated Press, 3/5/09)

Whip Cantor: The President’s Plan Could Cost Charities Billions. “It just defies logic as to why we would want to put up a disincentive for people to give to charities, especially when so many people are in a desperate state in our economy,” Cantor told CNSNews.com after a press conference on Wednesday. “We need charities now—we need them operating at full throttle so I am full-force opposed to what he is trying to do ... Cantor said the plan could cost charities billions of dollars. “That doesn’t make sense,” he said (CNS News, 3/26/09)

Warren Buffet demand that his taxes be raised, but not really

Warren 'Raise My Taxes' Buffett's Company May Owe IRS $1 Billion

Original Post: News Busters By Noel Sheppard

As NewsBusters reported Monday, American media almost completely ignored a report that Warren "Raise My Taxes" Buffett's company Berkshire Hathaway has been fighting with the IRS for almost a decade over taxes it owes.

On Tuesday, the organization digging into Berkshire Hathaway's numbers, Americans for Limited Government, estimated the total could be as much as $1 billion:

Using only publicly-available documents, a certified public accountant (CPA) detailed Berkshire Hathaway’s tax problems to ALG researcher Richard McCarty. Now, the American people have a better idea of how much in back taxes the company could owe Uncle Sam.

According to page 56 of the company report, “At December 31, 2010… net unrecognized tax benefits were $1,005 million”, or about $1 billion. McCarty explained, “Unrecognized tax benefits represent the company’s potential future obligation to the IRS and other taxing authorities. They have to be recorded in the company’s financial statements.”

He added, “The notation means that Berkshire Hathaway’s own auditors have probably said that $1 billion is more likely than not owed to the government.” Google News and LexisNexis searches have uncovered only the New York Post as a major outlet reporting ALG's previous revelations.

Now that the money involved is 10 figures, will anyone in the Obama-loving media address the hypocrisy of one of the President's wealthiest supporters?

Stay tuned.