- End of Day Report
- Congressional Information
- About Us
- Media Guide
- Contact Us
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
To: Friends & Supporters
From: Gary L. Bauer
COUNTDOWN TO VICTORY: 258 DAYS TO THE 2012 ELECTIONS
Tune In Tonight
Tune in to CNN tonight to watch the final Republican presidential debate before next week's key Arizona and Michigan primaries, as well as Super Tuesday on March 6th.
There is a lot at stake in tonight's debate. Can Rick Santorum keep his momentum surging with a strong performance? Can Mitt Romney reinforce his front-runner status? Or will Newt Gingrich regain his footing and once again become a serious force in the primary?
I am rooting for Senator Santorum, who I have endorsed and who is currently being savaged by the Obama campaign and its media allies. Quite frankly, I think Santorum scares the left in America because they know he can bring working class voters to the conservative banner and defeat Obama in November.
Tune in tonight at 8:00 PM ET.
Adelson Doubles Down
For the moment the race appears to be a two-man contest between Senator Rick Santorum and Governor Mitt Romney. In the national polls, Santorum leads Romney 34% to 28%, while Speaker Gingrich and Congressman Paul are at 14% and 12% respectively. The results are similar in Arizona and Michigan too, where Santorum and Romney are polling significantly better than Gingrich or Paul.
But Newt Gingrich isn't likely to drop out anytime soon. In fact, his campaign has just purchased 30-minute blocks of airtime in upcoming primary states featuring a speech on energy independence. That's a big bet for someone running so far down in the polls. But Newt has an ace up his sleeve: Sheldon Adelson.
The wealthy casino magnate has been bankrolling a pro-Gingrich "super PAC" to the tune of $10 million already. Adelson says, "I might give $10 million or $100 million to Gingrich." That's small change for Adelson, who is worth an estimated $25 billion. As long as Adelson keeps his checkbook open, Newt will likely keep running.
Let me say this in Adelson's defense: Reasonable conservatives can and do disagree about which candidate would be the best person to nominate. But we all agree that Obama must go. In a recent interview with Forbes, Adelson explained why he is so willing to put his money on the line:
"What scares me is the continuation of the socialist-style economy we've been experiencing for almost four years. … the redistribution of wealth is the path to more socialism, and to more of the government controlling people's lives. …
"I see that the things that made this country great are now being relegated into duplicating that which is making other countries less great. … I'm afraid of the trend where more and more people have the tendency to want to be given instead of wanting to give. People are less willing to share. There are fewer philanthropists being grown and there are greater expectations of the government. I believe that people will come to their senses and not extend the current Administration's quest to socialize this country. It won't be a socialist democracy because it won't be a democracy."
If you need an example of what Adelson is talking about and why it is so important that we take back the White House and the Senate this November, click here to see yet another top Obama adviser making the absurd argument that unemployment benefits stimulate the economy. America can't afford four more years of Barack Obama!
"The Power To Tax Is The Power To Destroy"
It is a well-regarded economic principle that if you want more of something you subsidize it to promote it, and if you want less of something you tax it to penalize it. Today's Wall Street Journal has crunched the numbers on Obama's latest budget and it seems that Obama's tax increases, particularly on dividends, are intended to destroy wealth creation in America. Consider this excerpt from the Journal's editorial:
"Mr. Obama is proposing to raise the dividend tax rate to the higher personal income tax rate of 39.6% that will kick in next year. Add in the planned phase-out of deductions and exemptions, and the rate hits 41%. Then add the 3.8% investment tax surcharge in ObamaCare, and the new dividend tax rate in 2013 would be 44.8% -- nearly three times today's 15% rate.
"Keep in mind that dividends are paid to shareholders only after the corporation pays taxes on its profits. So assuming a maximum 35% corporate tax rate and a 44.8% dividend tax, the total tax on corporate earnings passed through as dividends would be 64.1%."
We've been down this road before. Higher capital gains and dividend taxes yield lower revenues because they discourage and punish investment. Lower tax rates yield greater revenues because they encourage investment. It is playing out right now in England, where a higher tax on the "rich" has generated far less revenue than anticipated.
It's not a complicated concept to grasp -- unless you are a committed socialist who ignores sound economic policy in favor of abstract concepts like "fairness" or "spreading the wealth around." (Who could that be?)
But even worse, this massive new tax hike would disproportionally impact seniors and retirees, many of whom live off of investment income. And because interest rates are so low right now, many have been forced to invest in dividend-paying stocks. According to IRS data "Almost three of four dividend payments go to those over the age of 55, and more than half go to those older than 65."
As the Journal concludes, Obama's wealth-destroying, job-killing policies to soak the rich "will drench almost all American families." Obama's socialism will destroy this country, just as similar policies have brought Greece and much of Europe to the brink of bankruptcy and worse.
Will Supreme Court Punt On ObamaCare?
Our friends at FreedomWorks reported this morning about a disturbing development that could lead the Supreme Court to delay a final decision on ObamaCare until 2016. Yes, you read that right.
It is just speculation at this point, but the justices have increased the amount of time they have allotted for oral arguments, specifically on whether the mandate is a tax. (You may recall that I addressed this issue in last Wednesday's report.)
Now here's the concern: "First enacted in 1867, the Tax Anti-Injunction Act sweepingly forbids any court from hearing any case in which any person attempts to prevent the assessment or collection of a tax. Once the tax has been assessed and collected, however, a court may hear a case on it. …The first time the IRS can levy the mandate penalty/tax won't be until folks file their tax returns, in mid-April 2015. The slow judicial process will likely delay a final Supreme Court ruling until mid-2016."
We will keep you posted.