(Reuters) President Barack Obama will call for cutting the top 35 percent corporate tax rate as early as this month, according to two sources close to the administration.

The president is likely to propose a rate closer to an average of that seen in peer nations, the sources said.

That would put the rate at about 20%. But, why not announce it now? Because this isn’t about passing a corporate tax rate cut, but, about politics

Facing a potentially tough presidential re-election challenge this November, Obama will propose cutting the rate following the release of his 2013 budget plan on Monday, February 13, according to the sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record.

While he spent a big part of his January speech to Congress criticizing businesses for moving jobs overseas, Obama said that “companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world.”

If he does announce a plan, the details will probably end up helping just a few companies, probably ones led by people who vote Democrat and donate to Democrats, much like with Obama’s Stimulus. And much like Obama’s vaunted bank settlement, which seems to help the big bank owners.

An overhaul of the corporate tax system is extremely unlikely in an election year, but the president’s proposal could be an olive branch to the business community to show that he agrees with them on one key aspect of tax reform.

And there you go, this is about campaign optics, not about actually Doing Something. He’ll probably offer up something which looks great on the outside, but has poison pills on the inside, which are objectionable to the GOP. The media will avoid mention of the poison pills, and make the GOP look bad. If the GOP has any brains, they should pass a clean corporate tax rate quickly, forcing Obama’s hand. They should do the same with the payroll tax cut, extending it for one year, get ahead of the curve. Obama whined about this in this week’s weakly address (yes, I meant to spell it that way). Obama plans to offer the cut in his budget. Now we know why Democrats wanted a 2 month extension: to attempt to make Obama look magnanimous by pushing a year long extension, which is what Republicans wanted in the first place.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

(Politico) President Barack Obama — in an act of hypocrisy or necessity, depending on the beholder — has reversed course and is now blessing the efforts of a sputtering super PAC, Priorities USA Action, organized to fight GOP dark-money attacks.

Pure hypocrisy, and, what the hell is “dark-money attacks”? Looks like Glenn Thrush is offering up stealth raaaaacism.

On Monday morning, Obama reviled the “negative” tone of the super PACs, a dominant fundraising source in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. But by the evening, word leaked to POLITICO that Obama had offered his support for Priorities USA Action, which thus far has raised a fraction of what GOP-backed groups have raked in.

Obama’s top campaign staff and even some Cabinet members will appear at super PAC events. The president himself will not address super PAC donors, although there’s nothing to legally prohibit the president, first lady Michelle Obama and Vice President Joe Biden from expressing their support for the group — as GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney has done for his own pet super PAC.

But, Mitt has never complained about Super PACs, especially since Team Obama has talked about raising $1 billion for the 2012 election as a stated goal.

Over at the re-coronation website of Mr. 1%, they are officially rationalizing the need for Super PACs for Obama, where

We will not play by two sets of rules

Interesting. Syria plays by a different set of rules. So does North Korea, Al Qaeda, and Iran. Canada has different rules, as does England, France, and Greece. Does this mean we should play by those rules because they do?

The (Citizens United) decision has accelerated a dangerous trend toward a political system increasingly dominated by big-money interests with disproportionate power to spend freely to influence our elections and our government.

Jim Messina writes that this is a “dangerous trend”, so, instead of the POTUS leading and refusing to take their money and help, having railed against them for over a year now, he’s going to capitulate and become part of that “dangerous trend”. The rest is rationalizing the need for Obama to dump his year long whines against Super PACs, because they have “accepted the reality of the law as it currently stands” and it’s “consistent with the law.”

Meanwhile, other Super PACs established for the sole purpose of defeating the President—along with “nonprofits” that also aren’t required to disclose the sources of their funding—have raised more than $50 million. In the aggregate, these groups are expected to spend half a billion dollars, above and beyond what the Republican nominee and party are expected to commit to try to defeat the President.

Well, yeah, that’s the point of an election: defeating the other campaign.

With so much at stake, we can’t allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm.

This from the guy who wants to raise a billion dollars. The guy who disabled the credit card verification system during the 2008 election. The guy who has the backing of super rich guys like George Soros and Peter Lewis. The guy who has the backing of all the unions. Hollywood. The teachers. Lawyers. 90% of the news media. All the people sitting on welfare being taken care of by the Central Government. The companies which he has purchased. Sounds like unilateral disarmament, eh?

This is Barack Obama in a nutshell: no principles.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Red light cameras are a mixed bag across the USA. Big cities love them, small cities increasingly less. But one thing is universal where ever they are tried. The whole thing is about revenue generation, not public safety. Most city administrations try desperately to hide their greed behind hoary claims of safeguarding the public, but at least Toledo, Ohio has dispensed with some of that subterfuge and is admitting straight out that making money is a main goal.

Last month Toledo’s finance director told the city council that they were installing 11 new red light cameras with the expectation that the project would “raise” $320,000. What did the city need that new revenue for? More government spending, of course.

Oh, and it’s for the children, too. Toledo Councilman Steve Steel was excited to get the new revenue. “It does restore the biggest thing we were looking for, which was giving kids something constructive to do in a positive atmosphere,” he crowed.

So, now officials will berate you if you stand against these useless devices that are just a means to give government more money to spend on pet projects because, darn it, it’s for the children! WHY do you hate kids, taxpayers?

Unfortunately for Toledo’s city fathers, red light cameras are increasingly failing at both revenue generation and public safety. Many cities that once had them have pulled them out because revenues dropped over time while maintenance costs continued to rise not to mention that some cities have found that the red light cameras actually cause more accidents instead of improving driver safety.

Worse, some cities have played games with the cameras in order to keep revenues flowing into their profligate hands. At least six cities were caught shortening yellow light times in order to catch more drivers running red lights.

But we don’t even have to stray from Toledo to show that new red light cameras won’t bring in a never ending stream of spending cash. Ohio native Maggie Thurber notes that Toledo has already seen revenues fall from other red light camera installations.

The problem, as I’ve detailed previously, is that the more people get used to red light and speed cameras, the less the revenue there is from violations. Since 2009 when the city added speed cameras and negotiated a higher percentage of the fines, the revenue has steadily decreased. This means that the city, in order to continue to collect their targeted budget amounts, must constantly expand the big-brother-type surveillance.

Yet, here they are trying for more red light cameras. Why? Because they imagine a pot o’ gold under every red light in the city. When politicians get dollar signs in their eyes its hard to shake them from the dreamy dream of more cash to spend on their pet projects. If it’s all about bringing in money they can spend. It has zip to do with safety.

(Washington Examiner) “Let’s see it,” a frustrated Sen. Jeff Sessions said on the Senate floor Monday afternoon. “Let’s bring it forward.”

By “it,” Sessions meant a Democratic proposal for a 2012 federal budget. In recent days Sessions, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, has been asking, pushing, pleading, cajoling and begging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to put forward a Democratic plan. So far, Reid has steadfastly refused.

That’s nothing new. The last time the Senate passed a budget was April 29, 2009, which was, if you are counting — and Jeff Sessions is — 755 days ago.

Oh, wait, my mistake, that’s annoying, that was Byron York writing last year. Let’s move to this year

(The Hill) Senate Democratic leaders on Friday said they do not intend to bring a fiscal 2013 budget up for a floor vote.

“We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year — it’s done, we don’t need to do it,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters on Friday.

Reid and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) argued that the debt-limit agreement in August directs spending for the next year and said Senate Appropriations Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) has already asked the heads of the subcommittees to write their appropriations bills for fiscal 2013.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) has said he would probably mark up a budget resolution for 2013, but Reid recently told the Hill he didn’t expect any floor action on a measure produced by the panel.

And then we have

House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who is working on his own budget plan, tweeted Friday that Senate Democrats “?confirm they’ve given up on budgeting. What a disgrace. Reid’s refusal to budget is a recipe for crisis.?”

Ryan has said that Democrats should be embarrassed to claim the debt deal as their blueprint because it “fell far, far short of solving this country’s fiscal problems.”

“It’s been more than 1,000 days since Senate Democrats have offered a budget plan to the American people,” Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the budget committee, said in a statement. “Now, once again, the Senate’s ineffectual Democrat majority balks at the task of leadership.”

Obviously, this has to be Bush’s fault in some manner or form. I’m not sure how or why, but, definitely Bush’s fault for this complete abdication of responsibility by Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats. It’s not like that pesky Constitution says

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

Technically, I suppose we could generously consider the aforementioned debt ceiling agreement to be a “consequence of appropriations,” but that would be very charitable for FY2012 and certainly does not cover Fiscal 2013. The House GOP need to make sure they go on record with a true budget, brought to the floor and passed. They’ve done that for FY2012 already. Multiple times. The Democrat controlled Senate refuses to pass one, which is quite understandable, what with the next general election coming up. They’ve decided that there is less damage in abdicating their responsibilities than in showing the American public what they intend to do with the People’s money.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

(Fox News) Romney received 46 percent of the Florida vote. Gingrich had 32 percent, followed by Rick Santorum with 13 percent and Ron Paul with 7 percent.

Romney won all 50 of Florida’s convention delegates.

The Politico’s Maggie Haberman, who has done a pretty good job in covering the GOP primaries, even for a liberal, I have to admit, provides 5 takeaways

1. Mitt Romney is once again running two campaigns – Romney’s election night speech, in which he mentioned Newt Gingrich only to congratulate him, left no doubt that Team Mitt is now heading into general election mode after a commanding victory in Florida.

The focus was almost entirely on President Barack Obama, whom Romney excoriated repeatedly.

2. February is uncharted territory – Newt Gingrich is not giving up. Neither is Rick Santorum. And Ron Paul is continuing with his delegate slog. (Gingrich will need a few big wins in Southern states, or at least strong showings)

3. Conservatives are still resisting Romney – No matter how heavily he won certain portions of Florida, the restored front-runner is still unable to lock down certain swaths of the GOP electorate.

4. Hispanic voters gave Romney a boost – Despite Gingrich’s potential appeal among Florida’s Hispanic immigrants, it was Romney who won more than half of the crucial voting bloc’s support.

5. There is no ‘new normal’ for campaigns – Gingrich has focused on running a nontraditional campaign, as he has put it, but certain time-honored rules still apply.

Which rules? Negative campaigning works. Ground games are important. And so is money.

And what of Santorum and RON PAUL!!!!11!!? Santorum is going to keep going, as well he should. There is still time for him to catch fire. As for Ron Paul, 7% is a pretty poor showing, considering he said he does great with seasoned citizens and all the military folks in Florida.

Takeaway #6 is that all four candidates, but, especially Newt and Mitt, need to dial back the negative ads and talk. They need to stop it, and ask the groups that support them to stop it. 92% of the ads were negative. The idea here, as all of them will tell you, is to defeat Obama and turn this country around. Repeal ObamaCare. Fix the economy. Get people working again. And create the atmosphere where people once again have disposable income. We’re almost 5 years out from the start of the recession. We’re well over 2 years out from the official end of the recession. Yet, there is complete stagnation in the economy. All the negativity may get one of these gents over the primary finish line, but will only help Obama come the general election.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

The campaign for the GOP nomination is really getting hot in Florida. The hard campaigning has caused a lot of bemoaning over the attacks going on between Mitt Romney, his ads and the ads sponsored by his super PAC, and Newt Gingrich’s own attacks. Everyone is concerned that this mudslinging and in fighting may be hurting the GOP. But is it?

Well, relax, everyone. There is nothing unusual going on here. What we are witnessing is really nothing different than we’ve ever seen in this country. In fact, some may recall the viciousness between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in 2007. But memories fade all too quickly and too many jump to this momentary feeling that things are worse now, that today’s political climate pales in comparison to vague, past golden ages that never existed.

All this fighting is a good thing. From it we get to see issues debated in immediate and passionate ways that mere, dispassionate debate will not show us. Sure it’s raucous, loud, maybe a bit unseemly, even. But compared to what our nation’s enemies want to do to us, this is weak brew and if we have candidates that can’t stand up to a few TV ads, then how badly will they wilt in the face of real challenge when in office?

As to the issues, up until this month Romney has been allowed to skate on answering to his hardheaded and unfathomable support of Romneycare. His Massachusetts healthcare policy — one he continues to support adamantly — is little different from Obamacare. After all, his healthcare plan was the model for Obamacare. Yet, the media has given him a complete pass on answering to it. But Rick Santorum and Gingrich have finally started hitting Romney on his hypocrisy of claiming that Romneycare is great but Obamacare isn’t when they are indistinguishable in the particulars.

With the attacks on Gingrich we are seeing all his warts uncovered. All his past mistakes, flip flops, and at times odd behavior are being dredged up for a whole new generation of voters that may not remember his years in the House of Representatives.

How Romney and Gingrich handle these challenges gives us a measure of them as candidates. A staid debate does not reveal temperament nearly as easily.

Further, do we want a candidate that gets nominated without ever having to answer a single question about his record and his past? We got that with Obama and he has been a disaster.

But, let’s gain a bit of perspective shall we? These sorts of attacks on politicians have been going on since day one in these United States. People like to recall how in the 1800 election surrogates for John Adams (backed by Alexander Hamilton) floated the tale that Jefferson was a Godless atheist and was prone to bedding his slave women. Jefferson’s smear machine accused Adams of being un-American and pro-royal Britain. But the mudslinging started long before the 1800 presidential contest. A whisper campaign calling Washington stupid, senile, and out of touch had started before his first term was up with whisperers hoping that Washington would go home to Mount Vernon and clear the field for other candidates.

Andrew Jackson was called an uncultured fool who supported whores, Lincoln was called a baboon, candidate Al Smith was called a Papist that would hand the country over to the Catholic Pope, Barry Goldwater was said to desire a nuclear war with the Soviets, and on and on it goes. About the only presidential contest that was free of such viciousness was the campaign of James Monroe. His era wasn’t called the “era of good feelings” for nothing.

So, quit the carping, people. It’s always been this way. Let the mud fly and let’s see how it all shakes out.

(The Hill) The White House and Democrats have seized on legislation barring lawmakers from making insider stock trades as a political weapon to use against House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and his GOP colleagues.

The Senate voted 93-2 on Monday evening to advance the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, which prohibits lawmakers from using non-public information for financial advantage.

The overwhelming vote came after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) charged behind-the-scenes GOP opposition was holding up the debate. A senior GOP aide denied the allegation.

This raises the issue that it was done for purely partisan political purposes, not for any notion that it is wrong and distasteful for elected officials and government workers to engage in stock trades based on non-public information.

Because the House has yet to schedule a vote on a similar bill, Democrats in the Senate hope their quick action will suggest Republicans are resistant to the popular bill, which gained national attention after a November report on “60 Minutes.”

The Dems are crowing that the STOCK act was removed from markup last fall, but, um, wait a second

The STOCK Act was originally introduced in the 109th session of the House of Representatives on Mar. 28, 2006 by Brian Baird (D-WA) and Louise Slaughter (D-NY) where it died in committee. It was reintroduced in the 110th (May 16, 2007) and 111th (Jan. 26, 2009) House sessions where it also died in committee.

On Mar. 17, 2011, Tim Walz (D-MN) introduced the STOCK Act into the 112th House session where it gained one co-sponsor and was referred to various committees. Eight more co-sponsors joined by Nov. 4, 2011.

So, it died multiple times while Democrats controlled the House? And couldn’t get more than a few co-sponsors in 2011? And Dingy Harry never bothered with it previously, despite the legislation being out there? And that this looks more like a political stunt? Though, this stunt does have real teeth. S.2038 does say, in Sec. 605

A Member of Congress or an employee of Congress who violates the prohibition under section 602 shall be subject to appropriate punitive, disciplinary, and other remedial action in accordance with any applicable laws, resolutions, rules, or regulations.

At least until the Senate quietly passes legislation that invalidates that section, or the whole bill. Of course, in order for most criminal penalties to be assessed, a member of Congress has to be kicked out, and we’ve seen how well that has worked with tax cheats like Charlie Rangle.

That said, the GOP needs to get off their butts in the House and pass this. They also need to proactively pass legislation extending the payroll tax break for at least one year. Perhaps pushing a 2 year extension, put Democrats on the defensive.

(Politico) Democrats have seized on Republicans as the party of unlimited secret money.

The only problem: so are Democrats.

In recent days, Obama released an ad blasting “secretive oil billionaires” for attacks on him, Nancy Pelosi unveiled a campaign slogan calling for “a new politics free of special interest influence,” and the Democratic National Committee released a web ad accusing Mitt Romney of lying about his ties to a super PAC that’s spent millions supporting him.

Maybe that would have sounded better in 2008, when Obama put the kibosh on the Democratic outside money infrastructure — or even in 2010, when Obama led a chorus of Democrats assailing Republicans’ outside spending.

But this year, Democrats are playing the same game. Obama’s team has blessed a network of super PACs trying to raise the same seven-figure checks as Romney’s. And Obama’s allies have gone even further than Romney’s, setting up non-profit groups that do not disclose their donors at all.

There does actually come a point when money in politics has gone too far. Instead of providing a sound policy for America to get elected, politicians attempt to “buy” an election, and one need not look any further than ….. Barack Obama! Team Obama wants to raise $1 billion for his re-election. He refused to take public money for the 2008 election, instead relying on his big donor base of really rich people, along with some folks giving $3. And, now, after complaining about Super PACs and secret money, Obama and the Democrats are doing exactly the same.

But party leaders suggest the secret money attacks forecast in Obama’s ad – his first of the cycle – are part of a broader messaging strategy that seeks to cast Republicans as secretive and unethical pawns of big business who couldn’t care less about the plight of regular Americans.

“The reason that it was something we led with was that it’s part of the contrast,” said DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz when asked about why Obama’s ad began with a secret money attack rather than the gauzy positive themes that typically define inaugural ads.

What else can Obama do? His 1st term has been a mess. He has a few wins, mostly in the arena of being a warmonger, which should make his base truly happy, eh? His domestic policies have been a disaster, taking a recession and extending it, as well as making it worse. He wasted almost a trillion dollars on his pork laden Stimulus. He and the Dems wasted a year on their extraordinarily unpopular ObamaCare. Rather interesting that he really doesn’t want to talk about them now. There are more people on food stamps than ever before. People are abandoning the workforce in record numbers. The price of gasoline has stagnated in the mid-to-upper $3 range, causing the price of real goods to rise. His idiotic investments in “clean energy” have actually turned the industry into a joke. And so forth and so on.

And Obama has no new ideas to solve the problems. Just an escalating whine about income inequality and people doing their fair share, which means giving the Central Government more money to waste on pet projects for campaign donors in order to get more campaign cash to get re-elected. So, Obama will whine about “secretive” money while taking the same. Will he take money from Mickey Mouse, Dela Ware, and Anonymous this cycle? Will he abandon the use of credit card donation filters as he did last cycle? And will his whines make a difference, since they failed miserably during the 2010 midterms?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

“The blind trust is an age-old ruse,” Romney told the Boston Globe in October of that year. “You give a blind trust rules. You can say to a blind trust, don’t invest in properties which would be in conflict of interest or where the seller might think they’re going to get an advantage from me.”

Romney’s personal financial filing showed that Romney’s trust owned some potentially controversial stocks, including China Petroleum & Chemical, which has links to Sudan, and several gambling companies(including MGM and Harrah’s, which were sold).

Hat tip again to Dan Riehl who says Romney’s lack of character is what will keep him out of the White House.

Furthermore, Romney didn’t tell the complete truth about his investments of Fannie and Freddie.

The verdict, part two (were all of Romney’s Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae investments in a blind trust?): False. Some of Romney’s investments in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were outside of his trust, which means he could have known about them.

It’s as if the conservative media over the past 24 hours decided Gingrich is for real, and they need to come clean about the man they really know before it’s too late. This is just a sampling of what’s hitting Newt:

• The overnight Drudge Report banner: “Insider: Gingrich repeatedly Insulted Reagan.” The headline linked to a devastating takedown by Elliott Abrams in the National Review, who wrote, among other things, that Gingrich had a long record of criticizing and undermining Reagan’s most transformative policies.

• Drudge also linked prominently to the American Spectator’s R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s similarly harsh takedown of Gingrich over character: “William Jefferson Gingrich.” In it, Tyrrell writes: “Newt and Bill are 1960s generation narcissists, and they share the same problems: waywardness and deviancy. Newt, like Bill, has a proclivity for girl hopping… His public record is already besmeared with tawdry divorces, and there are private encounters with the fair sex that doubtless will come out.”

Drudge runs hundreds of links to stories of all stripes about candidates, but has been seen by Republicans as favorable to Romney in the past.

• Bob Dole issued a scathing statement Thursday that the Romney campaign provided to the National Review in which he said “it is now time” to rally to stop Gingrich, blamed the former Speaker for losing House Republican seats in 1996, and warned that it could happen again, at all levels of government.

NRO joins in trying to make Newt, the candidate endorsed by Reagan’s son, seem anti-Reagan. Anne Coulter has an article linked at Drudge saying “Re-elect Obama! Vote Newt!

He’s also losing his edge to Mitt in quite a few polls. He is already fighting back though and Rush Limbaugh noticed the attacks and disagrees with them too. It will be interesting to see if he gains his momentum back through tonight’s debate.

Others that noticed: Legal Insurrection

Against the anti-Newt crusade stands a wealth of counter-viewpoints of people who were in a position to know and who share very differenct recollections of Newt and Reagan, via Josh Painter in the comments:

Reagan Nat’l Security Advisor Bud McFarlane: http://bit.ly/zd9eAF

Reagan Economist Art Laffer: http://bit.ly/xEDETi

Reagan WH political director Jeffrey Lord: http://bit.ly/zw2ZMb

Reagan Policy Analyst Peter Ferrara http://bit.ly/zq1QxI

Reagan media consultant Richard Quinn: http://on.msnbc.com/y2sPM2

Reagan’s Speechwriting Dir. Bently Elliott: http://thedc.com/xOkDvA

Reagan’s older son Michael Reagan: http://bit.ly/yYVy7L

Reagan’s beloved wife Nancy: http://bit.ly/zrWvAw

Wake Up America!

Republican voters can be influenced if the party establishment declares all out war against a candidate as they are doing against Gingrich, but voters should also be allowed and encouraged to see both sides of the issue, all the information available and not be forced toward one candidate or another by those with the loudest voices.