President Obama's 2012 Campagn Gets Underway With Petulant Speech, Unimpressive Budget Proposal at George Washignton University

President Obama took time out from his busy schedule on Wednesday to promote the upcoming Atlas Shrugged movie during an address at George Washington University.

Wait....what? He was being serious? Damn- that's unfortunate.

Several days after announcing his campaign for re-election, a government shutdown was narrowly averted and House Budget Committee chair Paul Ryan (R, WI-1) unveiled a budget proposal that would cut government spending by $4 trillion over the next 10 years, President Obama had the opportunity to show the public he was serious about this country's growing debt but instead decided to double down on the same rhetoric that cost his party control of the House last year. Here are some of the highlights (and I use the term loosely) with commentary from me where I thought appropriate:

In the speech at George Washington University, he positioned his spending plan as a more "compassionate" alternative to one introduced last week by Ryan. He applauded Republicans for putting a plan on the table to address entitlements, but the praise stopped there.

"The way this plan achieves those goals would lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we've known certainly in my lifetime," Obama said, calling the GOP plan "deeply pessimistic." He suggested Republicans were giving up on basic functions of government.

"It's a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can't afford to fix them. [Wait wait wait wait.....hold the phone- if you want to talk about infrastructure, THEN WHAT THE FUCKING HELL WAS THE STIMULUS SUPPOSED TO BE USED FOR!?- NANESB!]

If there are bright young Americans who have the drive and the will but not the money to go to college, we can't afford to send them," Obama said of the Republican plan.

"It's a vision that says America can't afford to keep the promise we've made to care for our seniors."

The president claimed his proposal would cut $4 trillion from the deficit in 12 years or less. He drew several lines in the sand as he explained how he planned to get there.

Accusing Republicans of cutting services to seniors and poor children while cutting taxes for the rich, Obama said: "That's not right, and that's not going to happen as long as I'm president." [oh good- so we can look forward to this happening sometime in January 2013 then? Please go away you colossal asshat- NANESB!]

The president's proposal would deal with entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid, but avoid the major changes being pushed by Ryan. The president opposes turning Medicaid into a block-grant program for states and making Medicare seniors purchase government-subsidized insurance, as Ryan proposed. Rather, he vowed to make other changes he claims will extract more than $300 billion in savings from those programs over the next decade. Plus he pushed cuts in discretionary spending, including to defense. [Of course! All military spending is wasteful- until Obama decides to start lobbing cruise missiles at Libya- NANESB!]

But where Obama departed most sharply from Republicans was his call for rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the most well-off Americans -- meaning a tax hike for households making more than $250,000, or the top 2 percent of wage-earners. Republicans and Democrats had agreed to extend all the Bush tax cuts for two years, but Obama said Wednesday, "I refuse to renew them again" for the top tier. [Gee- who didn't see that coming?- NANESB!]

"The most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more. I don't need another tax cut," he said [how generous of the guy who hasn't created a single job in his life- NANESB].

Here's the thing- exactly how much did the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act cost? The more conservative estimates put it at a minimum of $787 billion dollars. Unemployment wasn't supposed to go above 8% and all sorts of public work projects were going to create jobs as a result. Except after a few months in, the Obama Administration decided to change the metric to jobs saved or created- and that revision didn't even last until the end of 2009.

And instead of being used for infrastructure as it's cheerleaders had promised, the stimulus went instead to researching the effects of cocaine on monkeys or sexual activity of college freshmen at Syracuse University. Supposedly, in some very abstract manner, it worked and the economy is in a recovery- oh...and any budget proposal by the republicans would endanger this 'recovery'. Except this recovery features near double-digit unemployment, the dollar taking a beating, a cratering housing market as well as skyrocketing food, fuel and commodity prices.

Now, after all the funds that went towards in the 'stimulus' the President wants to raise taxes on 'wealthy' Americans (and make no mistake, the Democrat party has a very malleable definition of 'wealthy'). This is not unlike Bernie Madoff demanding a raise after bilking investors out of their life savings.

If this is part of President Obama's 2012 campaign strategy, I have to say that it is indeed very powerful and effective materiel......for whoever winds up running against him

General Electric, General Motors Avoid Paying Taxes for 2010

While taxpayers and small business owners are poring over their IRS 1040 forms, I'm sure this bit of news from a pair of corporations that have benefitted from government bailouts and lagresse will bring a bit of joy and wrmth to their weary hearts.

A little over two months ago, GE Chairman Jeffery Immelt was appointed to an economic panel by the Obama Administration. This was the same conglomerate who lobbied for cap & trade back in 2009 and who's subsidiary TV networks of NBC and MSNBC acted as unabashed cheerleaders for Obama during his 2008 Presidential campaign. Now it's been learned that General Electric will pay nothing in taxes for 2010 and will in fact be getting $3.2 billion in tax breaks from the US government thanks in part to concentrating most of its $14.2 billion in profits offshore. More than half of GE's current workforce is outside the United States as well.

Back in November the Wall Street Journal reporteda few weeks before GM's stock was set to be re-listed in the NYSE that General Motors could wind up with tax breaks worth an estimated $45 billion thanks in part to lossesincurred prior to the bailout.

GM, which plans to begin promoting its relisting on the stock exchange to investors this week, wiped out billions of dollars in debt, laid off thousands of employees and jettisoned money-losing brands during its U.S.-funded reorganization last year.

Now it turns out, according to documents filed with federal regulators, the revamping left the car maker with another boost as it prepares to return to the stock market. It won't have to pay $45.4 billion in taxes on future profits.

The tax benefit stems from so-called tax-loss carry-forwards and other provisions, which allow companies to use losses in prior years and costs related to pensions and other expenses to shield profits from U.S. taxes for up to 20 years. In GM's case, the losses stem from years prior to when GM entered bankruptcy.

Usually, companies that undergo a significant change in ownership risk having major restrictions put on their tax benefits. The U.S. bailout of GM, in which the Treasury took a 61% stake in the company, ordinarily would have resulted in GM having such limits put on its tax benefits, according to tax experts.
"The Internal Revenue Service has decided that the government's involvement with these companies, both its acquisitions plus its disposals of their stock, means they should be exempt" from the rule, said Robert Willens, a New York tax consultant who advises investment banks and hedge funds.

The government's rationale, said people familiar with the situation, is that the profit-shielding tax credit makes the bailed-out companies more attractive to investors, and that the value of the benefit is greater than the lost tax payments, especially since the tax payments would not exist if the companies fail.

The pricetag for the GM bailout was thought to have reached at least $30 billion. The fact that the government was still a stakeholder in General Motors at the time could help explain the DOT's aggressive pursuit of Toyota Motors for a number of safety issues last year.