Though less entertaining than the Iowahawk-inspired Bill Whittle video posted here a few weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal’s tax-the-rich exercise in an editorial this morning is nonetheless more instructive, as it deals with real numbers released by the IRS (bolds are mine throughout):

… imagine that instead of proposing to raise the top income tax rate well north of 40%, the President decided to go all the way to 100%.

… The mathematical reality is that in the absence of entitlement reform on the Paul Ryan model, Washington will need to soak the middle class—because that’s where the big money is.

Consider the Internal Revenue Service’s income tax statistics for 2008, the latest year for which data are available. The top 1% of taxpayers—those with salaries, dividends and capital gains roughly above about $380,000—paid 38% of taxes. But assume that tax policy confiscated all the taxable income of all the “millionaires and billionaires” Mr. Obama singled out. That yields merely about $938 billion, which is sand on the beach amid the $4 trillion White House budget, a $1.65 trillion deficit, and spending at 25% as a share of the economy, a post-World War II record.

Say we take it up to the top 10%, or everyone with income over $114,000, including joint filers. That’s five times Mr. Obama’s 2% promise. The IRS data are broken down at $100,000, yet taxing all income above that level throws up only $3.4 trillion. And remember, the top 10% already pay 69% of all total income taxes, while the top 5% pay more than all of the other 95%.

We recognize that 2008 was a bad year for the economy and thus for tax receipts, as payments by the rich fell along with their income.

Let’s stop there for a moment, because wasn’t quite as bad as the Journal indicates. Let’s never, ever forget that fiscal 2008 (I know, not the same as calendar 2008) was the highest year ever for tax collections, which included strong receipts during January-June 2008. Collections in April reached a single-month record of over $400 billion. About $95 billion in IRS stimulus checks should have been treated as outlays. When added to the $2.523 trillion listed in September 2008′s Monthly Treasury Statement, that yields a true total of $2.618 trillion. That’s the high-water mark for fiscal year collections. Individual income tax collections in fiscal 2008 (again adding back the stimulus payments) also reached an all-time record of $1.23 trillion. By contrast, individual income tax collections in fiscal 2010 were just under $900 billion, or over 25% lower than fiscal 2008.

I did look at 2007′s IRS info (accessible here), which showed $5.94 trillion in taxable income, so calendar 2008′s taxable income of $5.65 trillion was about 5% lower. If you think that dip is bad, wait until you see 2009, which won’t come out until later this year.

Skipping ahead to later paragraphs in the editorial:

… in 2008, there was about $5.65 trillion in total taxable income from all individual taxpayers, and most of that came from middle income earners. The nearby chart shows the distribution, and the big hump in the center is where Democrats are inevitably headed for the same reason that Willie Sutton robbed banks.

… Mr. Obama is turning as he did last week to limiting tax deductions and other “loopholes,” such as for mortgage interest payments. We support doing away with these distortions too, and so does Mr. Ryan, but in return for lower tax rates. Mr. Obama just wants the extra money, which he says will reduce the deficit but in practice will merely enable more spending.

Keep in mind that the most expensive tax deductions, in terms of lost tax revenue, go mainly to the middle class.

… Mr. Obama’s speech was disgraceful for its demagoguery but also because it contained nothing remotely commensurate to the scale of the problem. If the President had come out for a large tax on the middle class, like a VAT, then at least the country could have debated the choice of paying for the government we have or modernizing it a la Mr. Ryan so it is affordable.

Instead the President will continue targeting the middle class for tax increases to pay for an entitlement state on autopilot, while claiming he only wants to tax the rich.

The best ways for the administration to raise tax revenue — even better than the long-term multitrillion-dollar bonanza available if we would just “drill baby drill” — would be to puncture the pervasive business-uncertainty overhang by promising (and keeping the promise) to stop micro-meddling in the economy, and to repeal Obamacare. Sadly, neither are going to happen.

Michael Barone, who first coined the term “Gangster Government” almost two years ago to describe the administration being run by our Punk President, correctly characterizes the Obamacare waiver regime of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (bolds are mine):

(The recent budget deal) requires the General Accountability Office to conduct an audit of the waivers from the Democrats’ health care bill that are being issued in large numbers by the secretary of Health and Human Services Department.

This will raise an uncomfortable question. If Obamacare is so great, why are so many trying to get out from under it? And, more specifically, why are so many Democratic groups trying to get out from under it?

The fact is that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has granted more than 1,000 waivers from Obamacare. Many have been granted to labor unions. Some have been granted to giant corporations like McDonald’s. One was granted to the entire state of Maine.

By what criteria is this relief being granted? That’s unclear, and the GAO audit should produce some answers. But what it looks like to an outsider is that waivers are being granted to constituencies that have coughed up money (or in the case of Maine, four electoral votes) to the Democrats.

If so, what we’re looking at is another example of gangster government in this administration. The law in its majesty applies to everyone except those who get special favors.

The GAO has also been ordered to produce audits on the effect of Obamacare on health insurance premiums. This is likely to reveal that the president did not keep his promise that you could keep your current health insurance if you want to.

What Barone describes as “another example of gangster government” also fits the definition of tyranny (“arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority”).

Additional thought: GAO will also need to shed light on why, if it’s indeed the case, certain entities may NOT have received waivers.
_______________________________________________

You can’t make this up, via Bryan Preston at the PJ Tatler (bold is mine; internal link is in original):

Retired Gen. Ricardo Sanchez looks set to join the campaign for the Texas Senate seat being vacated by KBH, as a “progressive on social issues, fiscally conservative” Democrat.

… not too long ago Sanchez was linked with the worst scandal to come out of the US-led war in Iraq: Abu Ghraib. Sanchez was found to be derelict in his oversight duties, a dereliction that led to one of the most significant public relations defeats for the US in the entire war. He left the military in some disgrace.

The Democrats seriously want to run the highest ranking officer who was connected to Abu Ghraib, whom the Army found to be derelict in his duties, for Senate? Apparently, they do.

The New York Times, in devoting 32 consecutive front-page stories (HT Ed Driscoll) to Abu Ghraib, thought the scandal could bring down George W. Bush in the 2004 election. Now the person held primarily responsible for the scandal is the Democrats’ candidate for the U.S. Senate. Someone ought to make it their work to look up and post every comment made by a Democratic politician during that time frame.

_______________________________________________

Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss is all ready to sell out on tax increases (HT Erick Ericksen), and he may have more GOP Senatorial allies (bold is mine):

“I hear my critics; I pay attention to my constituents,” he said in an interview. “But you’ve got to do the right thing and what’s best for the country.”

And Mr. Chambliss has been increasingly outspoken in arguing that additional revenues must be part of a debt-reduction plan, given the scale of the problem.

“I’m taking arrows from some on the far right,” he told the Rotary Club of Atlanta in an appearance with Mr. Warner on Monday. “Are some people going to pay more in taxes? You bet.”

A bolt came in February from Grover Norquist, a Republican antitax activist, who wrote to Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Coburn and Mr. Crapo to say they would violate his group’s “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” if they supported raising revenues for deficit reduction.

Et tu, Coburn and Crapo?

If you guys in Washington want revenues, there’s a real easy and economically contributory solution: Drill baby drill.

_______________________________________________

Eric Holder’s Justice Department should be renamed “DOOMED” (The Dhimmis of Obama’s Obstructionist and Meddling Extraconstitutional Deployment). While I work on refining the acronym, I call readers’ attention to Patrick Poole’s two recent Pajamas Media columns, which concentrate on the “dhimmi” element:

• April 14 — Obama Administration Scuttled Terror Finance Prosecutions. “High-level source concedes DOJ let off CAIR co-founders and others for political reasons.”
• April 18 — DOJ Source: Gov’t Muslim ‘Outreach’ Jeopardized Active Terror Investigations. “An explosive, must-read interview brings sunlight to our counterproductive “outreach” programs.”

If these clear compromises of national security keep up, “doomed” will also describe this nation. In failing to prosecute drop-dead obvious and serious violations of the law which jeopardize national security, the DOOMED Department is failing to carry out its sworn constitutional duties. There are constitutional sanctions for that, in case anyone in Washington still pays attention to the Constitution.

_______________________________________________

Doug Ross, who has a damning John Boehner budget-deal timeline, asks: “Can someone send a copy of Negotiating for Dummies to Speaker Boehner?” He adds:

We need a new Speaker of the House. Someone who understands that we’re up against true sixties radicals. These are people who want to see the whole society burn down. Because that’s where we’re headed without a major course correction.

I’m not ready to go as far as Doug, but Mr. Boehner needs to understand that there is no goodwill on the other side, and no interest in preserving this country in a recognizable form — none — and carry through on that understanding. There’s still time, but, as noted here last week, not much. We cannot afford to fail to seriously bring down spending.

I think he’s up to the task, but if John Boehner doesn’t think he can do it, he should step aside now and find someone who can. Because if he fails, he won’t be the only one crying for what we’ve lost.

From Rome:

Apr 14, 2011 / 06:10 pm

Officials at the shrine of St. Francis of Assisi have installed two video cameras in the crypt of the basilica so Catholics worldwide can make a “virtual pilgrimage” to the saint’s tomb.

The installation of the cameras, which can be accessed at www.sanfrancesco.org, coincides with the re-opening of the crypt of St. Francis, which closed on Feb. 25 for renovation and maintenance.

The crypt has been the resting place of the saint’s remains since 1230.

Devotees of St. Francis, the founder of the Franciscans, can also send their prayer requests to latuapreghiera@sanfrancesco.org.

The president of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, presided at the re-opening of the crypt on April 9.

The general custodian of the Convent of Assisi, Fr. Guiseppe Piemontese, told L’Osservatore Romano, “The preparation and expectations for Pope Benedict XVI’s visit next Oct. 27” were motivators for restoring “the original splendor of this place, which is the center and heart of Assisi and of Franciscans all over the world.”

Thanks to the work of Sergio Fusetti, the walls of the crypt – which were blackened from candle smoke – were restored to their original red color. A new lighting system was also installed. …

Go here for the rest of the story.

Whoever is compiling a list of what journalists really believe when they put forth certain vague but commonly used phrases (e.g., using “some people believe” instead of truthfully saying “in my opinion”) should consider adding the following: “small but vocal group” really means “a tiny bunch of people I agree with.”

That’s my assessment as I look at two uses of the term this past weekend, each referring to pathetically small gatherings of people using tax-filing weekend as a excuse to protest “corporate tax loopholes.”

The first comes to us via David Roeder of the Chicago Sun-Times (HT JammieWearingFool via Instapundit), where the paper’s headline writers cooked up something that would give those who didn’t read the underlying report the impression that the city’s Tea Party Tax Day protest was small:

Small but vocal group protests taxes

“Thank you for paying your taxes” is a seldom-heard phrase, but it was the calling card Sunday for a few citizens angry about federal loopholes for corporations.

They had a serious point to make with humor. With some dressing the part, they pretended to be high-class moguls walking Michigan Avenue and thanking people “for paying your fair share of U.S. taxes, so we don’t have to.”

… They included members of the Coffee Party, which is positioning itself as a nonpartisan alternative to the Tea Party, and U.S. Uncut. Last week, U.S. Uncut took credit for a hoax press release saying that General Electric was returning to the treasury its $3.2 billion tax refund.

Participants said they hope to convince others that wiping out corporate loopholes will save critical programs facing the budget ax. “The corporate tax situation in Europe is so much simpler,” said Jim Netter, a music producer from Chicago. “Nominal rates are much lower, but corporations actually have to pay them.”

The headline obviously should have read that the group opposes “tax loopholes.”

Anyone even remotely familiar with federal fiscal figures knows that closing all the alleged loopholes would barely make a dent in the government’s $1.5 trillion annual deficit. Additionally, closing the alleged loopholes without lower overall corporate tax rates (the average effective rates in the U.S. is currently the second-highest in the world behind Japan) would only work to make American companies less competitive, cause them to create more jobs overseas instead of here, and lead some of them to move their headquarters out of the U.S.

Another similar report comes out of St. Augustine, Florida:

Small but vocal group protests outside rally

As Tea Party members enthusiastically cheered politicians at Saturday’s Tea Party rally at the St. Johns County Fairgrounds, a small but vocal group gathered at the State Road 207 entrance.

As many as three dozen people — including teachers from at least three counties — held signs that said “Pink Slip Rick,” and “Fight Truth Decay.”

… St. Johns County Education Association president Debby Etheredge said the group was protesting cuts to education spending “and the fact that (state Sen. John Thrasher) wants to take away our political voices.”

Etheredge was referring to Thrasher’s introduction of a bill that the Associated Press reports would no longer allow union dues to be automatically deducted from employees’ paychecks and would require members to give written approval before their dues are used for political purposes.

… Once we collect the dues dollars, it’s up to the members where the money goes,” Said Liz Crane, president of the Clay County Education Association. “It’s not up to the Legislature, which is saying we can’t use (the money) for political purposes.”

…. Gloria LeBlanc, coordinator for the local Coffee Party, said she was holding the “Fight Truth Decay” sign to protest misinformation the current government is dispensing.

“I’m not here to protest the Tea Party,” she emphasized. “The Tea Party is welcome in the Coffee Party.

… The Coffee Party is a nonpartisan group committed to civil dialogue about problems facing the nation, state and local community.

“I’m protesting cutting programs for the poor and middle class while giving tax cuts for the rich,” LeBlanc said. “I don’t want controversy. I want to have a dialogue.”

Oh yeah, they’re nonpartisan. The last four excerpted paragraphs are so laugh-out-loud funny that it should have come with a “don’t read this if you have any liquids in your mouth” warning.

As to the use of dues for political purposes, there was a Supreme Court ruling about that over two decades ago: Beck vs. Communication Workers of America. The Court said that unions can’t use dues for political purposes without a worker’s consent. The problem is that until states codify Beck into law, the only way individual union members can stop this from happening is to take legal action themselves. They should ultimately win, but most will be deterred due to the costs and personal ostracism involved. As far as I can tell, all Florida is merely doing is what all 50 states should have done long ago, and the quoted Liz Crane is dead wrong.

There was one other Coffee Party-related event I found, but it was written up in advance in Oregon (bold is in original):

… Even though taxes are not due today, there are still Tax Day Tea Parties being held across the country, meant to bring attention to concerns with too much government spending and high taxes.

There are also rallies against the tea party today…

NewsWatch 12′s Danielle Craig was live at Alba Park in Medford, where some have gathered for a so-called “Coffee Party.”

The people who attended the “Coffee Party” say they’re tired of the Tea Party, blaming it for growing hate speech in politics.

… The Coffee Party is hoping today’s rally will unite minority groups in the community.

I would suggest that “some” in the third excerpted paragraph might really mean the following: “a really small and not very vocal group I agree with.”

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

The Associated Press’s Ben Feller interviewed President Obama on Friday. In the transcript, Feller interrupts Obama’s long-winded response to his previous softball question (“Are the Republican leaders lacking compassion and they’re pessimistic?”) by beginning another question, which is shown as having been stopped before completion:

Q. You said they might lead us to third world -

It’s impressive that Feller even knew that Obama, as reported by AFP, indeed accused Republicans of creating a fiscal plan that would, in Obama’s words, turn the U.S. into: “… a nation of potholes, and our airports would be worse than places that we thought — that we used to call the Third World, but who are now investing in infrastructure.”

That’s because, as seen in a search on “Obama third world” (entered without quotes), there is no current story at the AP’s home site:

The only item referencing Obama’s “third world” comment is Feller’s interview (the April 14 Libya story is unrelated).

The wire service is still carrying a home-site story on the Chicago speech where Obama made his “third world” remark. From all appearances, at least one of their reporters was there, as these paragraphs from an unbylined Thursday evening report show:

Obama says Republican efforts to go after him in a politically expedient way create problems for them.

The president joked about the “birther” issue at a fundraiser Thursday night in his hometown of Chicago. As he described his deep roots in the city, he noted, “I wasn’t born here” – referring to Chicago. Then the president paused and chuckled as the crowd at Navy Pier broke into knowing laughter.

“Just want to be clear – I was born in Hawaii,” the president said to more laughter.

But there is no reference to the “third world” remark.

The AP did run one story by Erica Werner with a late mid-Thursday evening timeline that I found at only three subscribing outlets in an April 14-17 search on [Obama "Associated Press" "third world"] (typed exactly as indicated between brackets, sorted by date with duplicates) that did carry the remark. But in the wire service’s inimitable presidential keister-covering style, it apparently decided that Obama’s “third world” comment wasn’t really newsworthy and removed it from subsequent story revisions.

Getting back to Feller’s half-question: Was it halted because Obama interrupted him, or because Feller realized he had just brought something up that the AP wished to bury? My money’s on the latter, because AP’s mini-stories on the interview released ahead of the transcript (here and here) make no reference to Obama’s “third world” Chicago remark, even though Feller asked about it.

For what little it’s worth, here is Obama’s answer to Feller’s half-question:

Well, literally, if you look at the numbers, we could not afford to repair our roads in this country under their budget. We couldn’t afford to provide the kind of financial assistance that we provide to poor kids or middle-class kids to go to college. We just couldn’t afford it. We could not afford under the budget that they’ve proposed to invest in medical research in the way that we’re currently doing. So that’s what I mean when I say that it is a pessimistic vision. It’s one that says that America can no longer do some of the big things that made us great, that made us the envy of the world, and so we’re going to leave it to China or we’re going to leave it to Japan or we’re going to leave it Brazil to make these big investments, to have the new discoveries. And that’s not I think how most of us think America should be.

Of course, Feller never asked why so many of these problems remain after two years of “stimulus” and with federal spending on track to come in a full trillion dollars higher than it was just four years ago:

That’s why a good working nickname for Feller’s employer is the Apparatchik Press.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

In a Friday evening editorial (bolds are mine), in response to President Obama’s assertion that “Republicans will make US a ‘Third World’ country’” (AFP’s headline; bolds are mine):

Excuse us, isn’t that the way we’ve been heading under Obama? Consider for a moment these trends:

• Real earnings have fallen for five straight months, and are down 1% since the end of last year.

• Consumer price inflation is growing at a 6.1% annual rate over the last three months, while producer prices are rising an even-faster 13%. According to John Williams of the Shadow Government Statistics website, if we measure consumer prices the way we did before 1992, inflation is now running at 10% a year.

• The U.S. has added $6 trillion to its debt under Obama, a sure sign of being on the road to Third World status. Three years ago, the U.S. had $7.9 trillion in debt. Today, we have $14 trillion. Bankrupt, hyperinflated Zimbabwe couldn’t do any better.

• The U.S. dollar has fallen so much and foreign nations have so little confidence in our ability to run our fiscal affairs that the “BRIC” nations — the mostly fast-growing former Third World nations of Brazil, Russia, India and China — are talking about replacing the U.S. dollar in foreign trade with the Chinese yuan.

• Just 45.4% of Americans had jobs last year, the lowest since 1983, according to census data crunched by USA Today. Among men, just 66.8% had work last year, the lowest ever.

• Obama touts the “recovery” that supposedly began in June of 2009, but a look at the data show that last year’s real private sector GDP was in fact still down 1.1% from its peak in 2007 — so all of the “expansion” has been in government, not the private sector.

• While we’re at it, under Obama, spending has risen farther and faster than under any president in history. At current rates, government at all levels will take up more than half of all economic activity by 2050.

Can’t happen here, you say? In 1920, Argentina was one of the five richest countries on Earth. Then it followed policies similar to Obama’s — kowtowing to unions, government control of industry, price controls. It crashed, burned and never really recovered.

Third World nations also either lose respect or have longstanding disrespect for the rule of law. This administration would appear to care less about the rule of law, as exemplified by the following notorious items in a far less than complete list:

• Its voiding of certain secured creditors’ contractual rights during the Chrysler bankruptcy, accompanied by their serial intimidation.
• The President’s clearly anti-constitutional signing statement insisting on preserving his czars in direct defiance of Congress, which specifically de-funded them.
• The Sestak job offer(s).
• The Romanoff job offer(s).
• The dropped Black Panther Pennsylvania voter-intimidation prosecution.
• The reissuance of a virtually identical deep-water drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico almost immediately after a federal judge declared the original null and void.
• Continuing to implement Obamacare after a federal judge voided the Affordable Care Act in its entirely.
• As reported by Patrick Poole a few days ago, the alleged scuttling of terror finance prosecutions against CAIR co-founders and others for political reasons.

As IBD’s editorial intro states: “As psychologists say, it sounds like projection to us.” It IS projection to anyone looking at the administration’s record.

A photo taken at a Tea Party demonstration in Boston carried at Yahoo News carries the following caption (HT Powerline):

VIDEO: April 15 was tax day in the United States, and Tea Party radicals used it to stage demonstrations across the country, including near the site of the original Boston Tea Party revolt of the colonial era.

The photo was grabbed from an Agency France-Presse video with an identical description. The pic and caption follow the jump:

(more…)

… and proves that the man cannot be taken seriously as a presidential candidate (Levin site link; YouTube).

Excerpts and points (just a sample):

• Levin — “Did he (Trump) go to a single rally? Did he contribute to a single Tea Party cause?”
• (He’s given money to) Chuckie Schumer, Anthony Weiner, and Charlie Crist.
• “I don’t see any contributions to Marco Rubio … he bet against Rubio twice.”
• He gave $2,400 to Friends of Harry Reid.
• But Trump says, “This is what a businessman does.” Levin: “What does a businessman do? Make unprincipled contributions to some of the most left-wing losers in the nation who are undermining our country? This is the new Tea Party candidate?”
• Trump wrote in his 2000 book — “We must have universal health care.”
• Trump wanted to impeach Bush for “lies” about the war in Iraq, calling him “so incompetent, bad and evil.”
• Now he’s saying that Obama is now the worst president ever, and that Carter is number two. Huh?

No sensible conservative can accept this. Trump is fundamentally unserious, and potentially very dangerous.

______________________________________________

UPDATE: See the contributions for yourself.

UPDATE 2, April 17: Heaven help us, Trump’s another guy claiming a pro-life conversion — and, unlike Mitt Romney, he’s smart enough not to leave any easily traceable tracks.

Via Jake Tapper (HT Althouse via Instapundit; internal link is in original; bolds are mine):

President Obama Issues “Signing Statement” Indicating He Won’t Abide by Provision in Budget Bill

One rider – Section 2262 — de-funds certain White House adviser positions – or “czars.” The president in his signing statement declares that he will not abide by it.

“The President has well-established authority to supervise and oversee the executive branch, and to obtain advice in furtherance of this supervisory authority,” he wrote. “The President also has the prerogative to obtain advice that will assist him in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities, and do so not only from executive branch officials and employees outside the White House, but also from advisers within it. Legislative efforts that significantly impede the President’s ability to exercise his supervisory and coordinating authorities or to obtain the views of the appropriate senior advisers violate the separation of powers by undermining the President’s ability to exercise his constitutional responsibilities and take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Therefore, the president wrote, “the executive branch will construe section 2262 not to abrogate these Presidential prerogatives.”

In other words: we know what you wanted that provision to do, but we don’t think it’s constitutional, so we will interpret it differently than the way you meant it.

During his presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama was quite critical of the Bush administration’s uses of signing statements telling the Boston Globe in 2007 that the “problem” with the Bush administration “is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation.”

Then-Sen. Obama said he would “not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law.”

Maybe somebody has an answer to this: If Congress has truly de-funded the czar positions, how is the Executive Branch going to pay them? With Bernanke bucks?

___________________________________________________

UPDATE: Via Rhymes with Right answers the previous question, and has more —

Good points. Generally hard to argue, though one would need to come up with more offenses to meet the plural standard in “misdemeanors.” Maybe each decision to cut an unauthorized check or send an unauthorized bank draft would represent an individual misdemeanor.

If this were Nixon or any other Republican or conservative president, these and other matters relating to the “signing statement” would have been hammered in the press for the remainder of the president’s time in office.

___________________________________________________

UPDATE 2: Obama’s direct promise in answering a campaign question on signing statements in 2008 (HT to an e-mailer) —

The key statement, beginning at 0:50, criticizing George W. Bush’s use of signing statements and promising that he won’t use them:

He’s been saying, “Well, I can basically change what Congress passed by attaching a letter saying ‘I don’t agree with this part’ or ‘I don’t agree with that part’ (or) ‘I’m going to choose to interpret it this way or that way.’”

That’s not part of his power. But this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he’s goin’ along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for ten years. I believe in the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.

It’s as obvious a promise-break as you’ll ever see.

From Readfield, Maine (HT Daryn Kagan; “How dare you feel sorry for yourself” videos are at link):

April 7, 2011 6:26 a.m. EDT

Born without hands and lower arms, fifth-grader Nicholas Maxim received a unique award Monday for his participation in Zaner-Bloser’s 20th annual National Handwriting Contest.

“We submitted his entry because we felt his penmanship was amazing considering he completes most of his work without using his prostheses,” said Cheryl Hasenfus, Readfield Elementary School principal.

At those times, Nicholas writes by holding a pen or pencil between his upper arms.

On behalf of Zaner-Bloser, a publisher of educational materials, Hasenfus presented a trophy to Nicholas during a school assembly for his excellent penmanship. The school is in Readfield, Maine.

Inspired by his ability, Zaner-Bloser decided to create a new award category in his honor: Nicholas Maxim Special Award for Excellent Penmanship.

“When our team saw Nicholas’ handwriting, we were just amazed,” said Zaner-Bloser President Bob Page. “Since we started this contest 20 years ago, we’ve been pleased to get a great response that increases every year, and Nicholas inspired us to encourage all students to participate.” …

Go here for the rest of the story.

Commenter “Jerry in Detroit” this morning nudged me to update something I last tracked sometime last year, and to which I dedicated a column in February 2010, namely the separate and diverging private and government GDP growth and dollar components.

This is an especially opportune time to do so, since the now-finalized fourth quarter of 2010 (pending the annual comprehensive revision which will go back several years) represents the first quarter during which real GDP for the entire economy actually exceeded the value seen in the second quarter of 2008. It was during the latter one-third to one-half of 2Q08 that the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy began.

So here’s where things stand, in 2005 chained dollars (i.e., adjusted for inflation):

Jerry in essence indicated that he didn’t think the private sector has grown since the recession as normal people define it began. Jerry is correct; what I will from this point forward refer to as PDP (Private Domestic Product) has contracted by 0.67% since the second quarter of 2008. But it is clear that FDP (Federal Domestic Product) has rolled merrily along at what would be considered a booming rate if an entire economy were involved.

Keep in mind that the above excludes government transfer payments, which began to grow excessively when the recession began, and have zoomed out of control since the Obama administration took over.

Given that recent 1Q11 GDP forecasts have been revised downward to an annualized 1.5%-1.7% range, it looks like it might be a couple more quarters before the private sector goes positive (not annualized and assuming/hoping all the growth is private, the GDP forecast is about 0.4%, which is less than the 0.67% shortfall above).

As far as the private sector is concerned, we’re still asking “Rebound? What Rebound?” — and apparently will be for some time.

I’m glad to see that somebody besides yours truly is referencing the booming Reagan post-recession economy and noting how it makes the pathetic “Rebound? What Rebound?” experience we’re currently enduring courtesy of the Obama administration — which all began as the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy three years ago — pale embarrassingly in comparison.

Phil Gramm does just that today in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, and ominously notes that while Reagan’s policies put American on a long-term higher trajectory, the pain the Obama administration is inflicting on the economy and the national economic psyche threaten to do the opposite:

Had the U.S. economy recovered from the current recession the way it bounced back from the other 10 recessions since World War II, our per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) would be $3,553 higher than it is today, and 11.9 million more Americans would be employed.

Those startling figures are based on the average recovery rate of real GDP and jobs three years after the beginning of each postwar recession. Some apologists suggest that the current recovery is so weak because the recession was so deep. But the totality of our experience in the postwar period is exactly the opposite—the bigger the bust, the bigger the boom that follows.

On average, three years after the four deepest previous recessions started, real GDP was 7.6% higher than the pre-recession level. During the Obama recovery, real GDP is up only 0.1%. Forty months after the start of the 1953, 1957, 1973 and 1981 recessions, total employment was on average 4.7% higher than the pre-recession peaks, while total employment today is still down 4.7%—that’s a total employment gap of 13.9 million jobs.

The problem is not just the weak recovery but increasing evidence that the economy is now on a growth path far different from the previous quarter century.

… If we had matched the 1982 recovery rate, today annual per-capita income would be $4,154 higher than before the recession—that’s an extra $16,600 for a family of four—and some 15.7 million more Americans would have jobs.

… A compelling case can be made that Reagan’s tax cuts, Social Security reforms, regulatory reforms, and limits on the growth and power of the federal government not only helped the economy shake off the malaise of the 1970s but generated an economic growth premium that bore dividends for Americans until 2007. (In my opinion, “compelling” should be replaced with “airtight” — Ed.)

And if the Reagan policies of the 1980s were sufficiently different from those of the previous decade to generate a growth premium, cannot a case be made that the policies of the Obama administration are sufficiently different from those of the previous quarter-century to alter the growth trend and impose a growth discount?

… The recovery is being stifled by the unprecedented policy changes undertaken by this administration and the previous Congress. Whether in absolute or relative terms, whether in comparison to our own experience or the performance of our competitors, America’s wealth-producing ability has been diminished.

… Big government costs more than higher taxes. It is paid for with diminished freedom and less opportunity. You can’t have unlimited opportunity and unlimited government.

Read the whole thing.

Another indicator that our economic trajectory may be changing for the worse on a longer-term basis is that what jobs have been added since the recession ended have been entirely in the area of temporary help services — and then some:

In 21 post-recession months, 263,000 non-temporary jobs have lost (+245K overall less 508K temps), on top of the millions of jobs lost during the recession itself.

Heckuva job, Nancy, Barry, and Harry.

The Obama administration-induced negative economic orientation could not have have come at a worse time. If its current trajectory become the news normal, we may not be able to avoid hitting the 90%-of-GDP tipping point for the level of federal debt held by the public, no matter what eleventh-hour steps Washington takes to rearrange the deck chairs on the federal Titanic.