What’s interesting in the news today?
As always, Open Thread.
Here’s a few to start.
____________________________________________________
Senator Rand Paul ended his filibuster of the Brennan nomination after almost 13 hours. That’s the first old-fashioned one I’ve seen since I started paying attention to politics. I watched an hour or so off and on and the Senator made some excellent points. The Senator stood up for his beliefs, and I give him credit for that. So a tip of the hat to the good Senator from Kentucky. And just a quick question. Where did all the Jose Padilla supportin’ lefties go? Isn’t this just the sort of thing (only worse) that they railed against during the Bush presidency? I guess like the rest of the anti-war crowd, they’ve changed their tune. You would think that this extreme was something we could all agree on, regardless of leanings. But no.
From TheWashingtonTimes
“After years in the shadows, the administration’s secret drone program burst into very public view Wednesday with lawmakers grilling the attorney general over legal justification for targeted killings and Sen. Rand Paul launching an old-style one-man filibuster to demand answers from President Obama.
The Kentucky Republican held the floor for almost 13 hours, effectively blocking a vote on the nomination of John O. Brennan, whom Mr. Obama has tapped to be CIA director. He said he would relent only if the administration publicly vowed not to target Americans on U.S. soil.”
““This is a long, drawn-out day, but it’s to try to get some answers,” Mr. Paul said after he crossed the eight-hour mark late Wednesday evening. “It’s to try to shame the president into doing the right thing.””
Sorry Senator, but you can’t shame the shameless.
____________________________________________________
The drone issue is not going away. And it shouldn’t.
Senator Cruz pressed AG Holder on whether Pres. Obama’s plan is constitutional. The AG had little choice but to admit that it’s not.
From HotAir
“A must-see via Mediaite, not just because this is the right question to ask after Holder’s letter on drone policy yesterday but because it fell to Cruz, the new bete noire of the left, rather than a Democrat to press the civil-libertarian case. Simple question: Is it a violation of due process to fire a missile at a guy on American soil if he’s not engaged at the moment in carrying out a terrorist attack? He might be a member of Al Qaeda; he might be planning an attack; but if he’s strolling down Main Street in some American town, is there any constitutional justification to toss a Hellfire at him rather than send the cops in to pick him up? Watch Holder’s reaction. Cruz has to browbeat him for three minutes to get him to shift from saying it wouldn’t be “appropriate” — which implies that the government might have the power to do it but would refuse to exercise that power for prudential reasons — to finally saying that, constitutionally, it doesn’t have that power. That’s an important admission; unless I missed something, it’s the first time anyone at the top has acknowledged a legal limit to drone strikes under certain circumstances. Here’s hoping we don’t have to point back to it someday.”
Now the President could have ended the filibuster by acknowledging what the AG did, and agreeing to support legislation banning such uses. He chose not to accept the Senator’s offer. In fact, he’s not even acknowledged it. He was busy having dinner with Republican “leaders” and RINO’s.
____________________________________________________
Well call this one “Message Fail”.
From ABCNews
“For all the dire warnings, most Americans welcome a five percent cut in overall federal spending this year. But the defense budget is another matter.
The public by nearly 2-1, 61-33 percent, supports cutting the overall budget along the lines of the sequester that took effect last Friday. But by nearly an identical margin, Americans in this ABC News/Washington Post poll oppose an eight percent across-the-board cut in military spending.
See PDF with full results, charts and tables here.
Why it’s almost like they support the Republican ideas, and not President, or something.
____________________________________________________
This one is just pathetic, but not surprising.
From TheWeeklyStandard
“On Friday March 8, Michelle Obama will join John Kerry at a special ceremony at the State Department to present ten women the Secretary of State’s International Women of Courage Award. The award, says the press release, is given to “women around the globe who have shown exceptional courage and leadership in advocating for women’s rights and empowerment, often at great personal risk.”
“Five of these awards are being given to women from Muslim-majority countries, underscoring the unique plight of women in those countries. The only problem is that one of the women to be recognized is an anti-Semite and supports the 9/11 attacks on the United States.”
“Ibrahim holds other repellent views as well. As a mob was attacking the United States embassy in Cairo on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, pulling down the American flag and raising the flag of Al Qaeda, Ibrahim wrote on twitter: “Today is the anniversary of 9/11. May every year come with America burning.” Possibly fearing the consequences of her tweet, she deleted it a couple of hours later, but not before a screen shot was saved by an Egyptian activist.”
She claims her Twitter account was stolen.
Sure. Let me guess, it musta been the Jews. 🙄
But don’t worry, it’s not like radical muslims have undo influence in this admin or anything. Now move along, nothing to see here.
____________________________________________________
A disturbing new trend for cash strapped people struggling to make it in this economy.
From PhiladelphiaCBSLocal
“A new national study shows that too many of us are cashing out 401(k) accounts to pay bills. If that retirement account is calling your name, a financial expert advises you to stop listening.”
“When the bills pile up and money is tight, many people turn to their 401(k) accounts to help ease the bind.
Downingtown, Pa. CPA Jacquelyn Basso says it’s not a good idea to raid your retirement; you’re getting money now that you’ll need to live on when you’re older.”
Unfortunately they need it to live now.
____________________________________________________
Wandering Views 
The last item is consistent with the figures HRW posted a couple of days ago. We are becoming like many Latin American nations used to be – a nation with many very poor, uneducated people. Many of those countries also had socialist governments. They could not afford strong militaries, and neither can the US as it is currently governed.
LikeLike
The problem is vast and almost unsolvable.
The unions have insisted on pay raises and increase in minimum wage so that ordinary manufacturing jobs have gone overseas.
There are no longer jobs in steel mills or knitting mills, auto factories, etc. where a man can work without a technical degree of some sort.
Some industries have moved to the Southern states where unions are weak. Michelin and BMW have plants in SC.
A country with a majority of service jobs cannot survive. We need to produce and sell something.
There is an opportunity, with fracking technology, to open up a new industry that can support industry. We can drill, refine and ship oil to the world. Cheap energy can revitalize industry in America too.
A new industrial boom in America!
That’s why Obama won’t approve it.
LikeLike
A primary reason for what is happening is demographics. Culture, morality, work ethic and a government that encourages ignorance and sloth are other factors. However, if you believe that the US has become a negative influence on the rest of the world, our economic decline is a good thing.
LikeLike
Also, I believe that even now the Democrats are trying to figure out how to take most of your saving to redistribute. I might be better to spend it now.
LikeLike
On another subject, Rand Paul’s filibuster lacks the basic understanding that enemy combatants may be dealt with lethally at home or abroad through the president’s war powers. Like his father, he is a libertarian ideologue who runs the risk of turning off Americans who take American interests and security seriously.
The Wall Street Journal in an editorial today remarked as follows:
…Such a conflict exists between the U.S. and al Qaeda, so Mr. Holder is right that the U.S. could have targeted (say) U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki had he continued to live in Virginia. The U.S. killed him in Yemen before he could kill more Americans. But under the law Awlaki was no different than the Nazis who came ashore on Long Island in World War II, were captured and executed.
The country needs more Senators who care about liberty, but if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. He needs to know what he’s talking about.
LikeLike
Sails,
Good to hear from you. Hope all is well.
Now about your post….. Fine. Then get a judge to issue a warrant. I’ll be honest. I could care less about drone strikes on foriegn terrorists. Do what needs doing, it is war after all. But on an American citizen in the US I’m not in agreement. As a citizen, he has a right to due process. This is not due process. It’s not the same as foriegn invaders coming to our shores, and you and the WSJ know it. Sorry, apples and lemons.
The right to due process is an American citizens constitutional right. The 5th Amendment clause isn’t as clear cut IMHO, but the 14th is.
” 5th Amend. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”
” 14th Amend.Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Our govt doesn’t have a right to do this. That the Senator was correct on.
LikeLike
AJ, I’m doing fine, though of late absorbed in a pile of business matters.
Enemy combatants including American citizens may be dealt with militarily in America or abroad. In most cases they are dealt with via military courts, though when engaged in combat, they may be killed wherever found. Those 5th and 14th Amendment rights count for nothing in the case of American enemy combatants.
Rand Paul is either demagoguing this issue or lacks understanding of it.
LikeLike
I agree with Rand Paul about US citizens in America. I fear the exceptions. Once on is made, the door is open to all sorts of abuses.
The US could become a dictatorship. We cannot let one man determine who the enemy is.
It wouldn’t take many steps for Obama to determine that the enemy is me.
LikeLike
A cautionary note on Rand Paul’s event from yesterday:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/03/rand-pauls-filibuster-is-it-grandstanding-or-something-worse.php
LikeLike
Sails,
Here’s the thing for me. If the person is a US citizen and he is actively engaged in causing harm to his fellow citizens, you may have justification. But if the guy is not actively harming othrs, and just sitting at home or walking down the street, sending the police to arrest him and letting the courts do their job is appropriate. Droning him is not.
And really, how long do you think it would be before they decide to start taking out us homegrown, right wing, gun toting christian taliban members? They’ve released numerous “warnings” on us from DHS that could be used to justify it. Not long at all I suspect.
LikeLike
Donna,
There seems to be a power struggle of sorts going on between the old guard and the new guard in the Republican party.
The old guard likes the status quo. It works for them. But not the rest of us. The McCain’s, Graham’s, and the like are happy the way things are. They meet with the President and accomplish nothing. In many cases, they’re the useful idiots of the Dem party.
Then you have the new guard. They were backed by the TP and sent a bunch to the Senate and House with a mission. Rein in spending, and stop the status quo nonsense. This is the Cruz’s, Rubio’s, Toomey”s, and Rand Paul. Whether the establishment R’s like it or not, they are doing what the voters sent them to do.
It’s time for a changing of the guard IMHO. In fact, it’s way past time. Powerline just seems to question Paul because of his father’s reputation. I did too. But the more I see and hear him, the more I see that he isn’t his dad. They may have some like-minded ideas, but he’s no carbon copy. Powerline also seems to want to discredit the new guard, in order to keep up the status quo. I am sooooo done with that. Let’s try something new, ‘cuz that old stuff from the old guys just ain’t workin’ any more.
Just my opinion, so take it with a grain of salt or something. 🙂
LikeLike
See what I mean? How is it ridiculous for a Senator to ask the President for a public assurance that drones won’t be used against citizens? Like I said, useful RINO idiot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwgaOPMrOFU&feature=player_embedded
LikeLike
I’m with you, AJ. I’m sick and tired of the RINO status quo. They are the rxact reason why Zero got another 4 years. The RINOs gave the base absolutely nothing to come out and vote for so the much of the base stayed home. As an election officer, I saw it in my own very red district.
LikeLike
There are a lot of things I “don’t have an understanding of,” but a simple reading of history demonstrates the “status quo” conservative-so-called doesn’t have an understanding of his or her own beliefs. It should be easy enough to recognize today’s “conservatism” bears little resemblance to the libertarianism that used to (sort of) undergird the Republican platform. If you’re fine with drones on citizens, cool, make your case. You’re scary, but you’re free to make your case. But don’t claim affinity for historic conservatism. More pointedly: don’t claim your position is remotely informed by Scripture.
Donna J: it may be worth perusing the Comments attached to the article you linked.
LikeLike
Oh, that was me. Looks like I was logged in to my junk email alias account…
LikeLike
AJ and Charles, we ordinary citizens at home or anywhere else are not going to be attacked by drones or other weapons. We are talking about American citizens known to be active enemy combatants. Should Obama go beyond enemy combatants, he would be corrected quickly by legal authority, or by impeachment.
The truth about Rand Paul is likely that, as the Power Line writer suggests, like his father, he has low regard for the necessary and vital war against the Islamic warriors.
LikeLike
SP, historical conservatives care a lot about national security and have no problem dealing sternly with home grown enemy combatants. Also, they quite understand that scriptural moralism when applied to national security is rather naive.
LikeLike
…rather naive
is accepting anything a government justifies in the name of (all rise) “national security” (blessed be its Name).
LikeLike
It’s pretty apparent that too many conservatives (so-called) “lack an understanding” of the sentiment, “Give me liberty, or give me death.”
LikeLike
SP, home grown enemy combatants forfeit their liberty that is hardly an absolute value. When during WW II, a German American citizen saboteur landed on the Long Island shore, he was quickly and summarily executed. True conservatives at the time were delighted at this outcome.
LikeLike
I agree with Sails. Most of what Obama is doing is wrong. I hate to see Republicans attack him for doing something I agree with.
LikeLike
Sails: define “home grown enemy combatants” and define “liberty” as you use the terms.
LikeLike
Sails: can you provide details of the incident you describe involving the German American citizen, including his name?
LikeLike
Sails and Ricky,
I get that. And to a point I agree. A true enemy combatant citizen should be dealt with as much force as necessary. Harshly, and with extreme prejudice if necessary. If he at that moment poses an imminent threst. But not when he’s sitting at home with his family, which the way drones work, they end up collateral damage. That’s unnecessary and unjust. In that case you should be required to present your case to a judge and get an arrest warrant. As a citizen, and like all criminals, they deserve due process. If a criminal is caught in the act of harming someone by authorities, shooting him is justified. If you pick him up a week later in a traffic stop it’s not. If he’s currently in the act of making war against his country, take him down. If not, they have no right to. And I’m sorry, just him and the AG sayin’ they wouldn’t, doesn’t mean they, or a future admin won’t.
This is simple. All the President had to do was make an effort. Clarify it, add some protections to ensure citizens rights are protected. It’s not that hard. He could probably even use his favorite tool, executive order.
LikeLike
The WH gave Rand Paul an answer. They would not drone unarmed civilians. So what happens when the WH suddenly decides that civilians who own firearms are now criminals, does that mean they can drone them?
LikeLike
Drives,
And we already know they have drones (DHS) capable of detecting weapons and monitoring cell phones.
LikeLike
Well the WH has finally responded. With a no, we can’t. Good. Now Congress can pass a bill protecting our rights, and the President should have no problem signing it.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/white-house-holder-respond-to-rand-paul-the-answer-is-no/article/2523555
“Attorney General Eric Holder wrote Sen. Rand Paul,R-Ky., to confirm that President Obama does not have the authority to kill an American on U.S. soil in a non-combat situation, Obama’s spokesman announced today.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney quoted from the letter that Holder sent to Paul today. “Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil?” Holder wrote, per Carney. “The answer is no.””
LikeLike
And yes, I know there are already numerous protections that could be said to prevent this. But drones are a whole new ballgame. And they’ve not really been addressed by the courts or Congress. Even if done with the next Homeland Security reauthorization, this has to be addressed. It’s a brave new world, and yes, Big Brother is watching. There are numerous privacy issues that need to be addressed.
Oh, and just wait til the police get in on the act and you start recieving drone issued traffic violations. And don’t think for a second they haven’t already thought of this potential new venue stream. 😉
LikeLike
😯
I actually agree with Van Jones? 😯
From Twitter
“Van Jones @VanJones68
If a GOP prez implied he could kill US citizens on US soil without due process, we liberals would be marching down street #ConsistencyCounts
The point is not whether OBAMA would abuse that kind of authority. The NEXT prez might. So we must be vigilant now & #consistent. #NoDrones”
😯 I need to go lay down.
LikeLike
I love Oklahoma. Here is the text of SB 548:
Req. No. 1241 Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
1st Session of the 54th Legislature (2013)
SENATE BILL 548 By: Dahm
AS INTRODUCED
An Act relating to the right to bear arms; creating
the 2nd Amendment Preservation Act; providing short
title; declaring how a certain amendment reads and
what it guarantees; specifying certain duty of the
Legislature of this state; providing penalties for
certain violations of the Act; providing for
codification; and declaring an emergency.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:
SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified
in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 1290.27 of Title 21, unless
there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
A. This act shall be known and may be cited as the “2nd
Amendment Preservation Act.”
B. The Legislature of the State of Oklahoma declares that the
2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms
free from infringement; that federal acts, laws, orders, rules,
regulations, bans, or registration requirements regarding firearms
constitute an infringement on the individual right, are not
authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violate its
true meaning and intent as given by the founders and ratifiers, and
are hereby declared to be invalid in the State of Oklahoma, shall
Req. No. 1241 Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
not be recognized by this state, are specially rejected by this
state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in
this state.
C. It shall be the duty of the Legislature of this state to
adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent
the enforcement of all federal acts, laws, orders, rules,
regulations, bans or registration requirements regarding firearms
within the limits of this state.
D. Any official, agent, or employee of the United States
government or any employee of a corporation providing services to
the United States government that enforces or attempts to enforce an
act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of
the United States in violation of this act shall be guilty of a
felony and upon conviction shall, upon conviction, be punished by
imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections not to
exceed five (5) years, or by a fine not exceeding Five Thousand
Dollars ($5,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment.
E. Any public officer or employee of the State of Oklahoma or
any political subdivision of the state, that enforces or attempts to
enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the
government of the United States in violation of this act shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction, be punished by
imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed two (2) years, or by a
fine not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by both such
Req. No. 1241 Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
fine and imprisonment.
SECTION 2. It being immediately necessary for the preservation
of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby
declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and
be in full force from and after its passage and approval.
54-1-1241 LKS 1/16/2013 11:00:20 AM
LikeLike
In terms of the Constitution, it doesn’t really matter if someone is the lowest dirt-bag in the world, having committed all sorts of crimes – as a US citizen he is granted rights and protections by virtue of his humanity and citizenship. It is unconstitutional to take a US citizen’s life without due process. It was wrong in Yemen, and it would be wrong in the US.
LikeLike
Sails: can you provide details of the incident you describe involving the German American citizen, including his name?
The answer, by the way, is No.
LikeLike
I’ll give you an example. If we knew a home grown John Walker Lyndh was planning a terrorist attack, he had disappeared and then a drone spotted him in the desert about to cross into Mexico, I would support the President’s right to blast him with a missile along with anyone else in the jeep with him.
LikeLike
SolarPancake, The man’s name was George Dasch. Here’s the story:
http://ghostsofdc.org/2012/02/09/six-nazi-saboteurs-executed-in-washington/
LikeLike
RickyWeaver, that account doesn’t describe “a German American citizen saboteur [who] landed on the Long Island shore [and] was quickly and summarily executed.”
LikeLike
“I would support the President’s right to blast him with a missile along with anyone else in the jeep with him.”
That’s pretty scary. Are you assuming you also know something of the passenger(s), or are they guilty by association?
LikeLike
One of those things that are hard to take living in a free society is that people aren’t guilty of a crime until they commit one.
LikeLike
Solar, Dasch was an American citizen (as the article noted) , he landed on Long Island and was executed within 7 weeks.
It comes down to whether one sees the battle against Al Qaeda as a war or a criminal matter. Clinton saw it as a criminal matter and the result was 9/11. Little Bush and Obama are prosecuting it as a war.
When my ancestors invaded Pennsylvania in 1863 in an effort to win their freedom they understood that Lincoln would send troops to shoot at them, not prosecutors to file charges against them.
LikeLike
Solar, If I (as a non combatant journalist) had been riding next to General Lee on the way from Cashtown to Gettysburg on July 1, 1863, I don’t think I could have complained if a sniper’s bullet meant for him had struck me instead. I would have been proudly “guilty by association”.
LikeLike
SP, Herbert Hans Haupt, a German American unlawful enemy combatant, age twenty-two, involved in a German sabotage operation, was executed along with four other German saboteurs in August of 1942.
American citizens enjoy within certain legal limits the right of free speech. They have no rights after choosing to be an actively unlawful enemy combatant.
LikeLike
Ricky, that is right. When an American citizen goes to war against the nation, he is fair game for jail or death. Lincoln properly suspended habeas corpus rights and jailed some Marylanders for years. I assume Jeferson Davis did likewise to traitors at the South.
War is a hardball game, notwithstanding the moralism of tender minded souls.
LikeLike
AJ mentioned the left is not critical of the drone use and nowhere to be seen on Rand’s filibuster. Not true, Jon Stewart gave kudos to Rand for doing an old school and stated that drone use was a suitable subject to filibuster over. On the left, Obama’s drone use is probably the most criticized part of his presidency. A meme/post on Facebook has a picture of MLK and Obama beside each other. Under MLK, it says I have a dream. Under Obama it says I have a drone. Drone use, outside of a war zone, whether in the US or abroad is wrong.
FDR did indeed imprison and execute German Americans very quickly. He was wrong — legal process should have been followed ie it was a criminal act and thus deserved a criminal trial. I like FDR but he was wrong here.
LikeLike
I have no doubt most people support spending cuts but are against defense cuts. Most Americans have ties to the military or their community does in terms of bases, industry, contracts etc. Its all encompassing. However this doesn’t mean they embrace just the Republican message.
Most Americans also agree with expiring the temporary Bush tax cuts (especailly for the wealth). They also support closing loopholes available for both corporations and people and increasing corporate taxes.
Thus both the Democrat and Republican message is getting through — why not do both?
LikeLike
hwesseli @ 20:03:41
“Most Americans also agree with expiring the temporary Bush tax cuts (especailly for the wealth).”
No, most Americans did not agree with expiring the temporary Bush tax cuts. Why do you think they were (mostly) made permanent? If you misremember that little negotiation, I wonder what else you misremember? Joe Clark’s turkey?
LikeLike
Why don’t we prosecute treason anymore? We don’t call it the crime of treason anymore.
LikeLike
Moreover, 76% say that the president and Congress should focus on a combination of spending cuts and tax increases to reduce the budget deficit
http://www.people-press.org/2013/02/21/if-no-deal-is-struck-four-in-ten-say-let-the-sequester-happen/
A bit out of date but demonstrates that support for a combination of taxes and cuts has been fairly consistent.
http://www.politicususa.com/polls-taxes-deficit.html
LikeLike
Politics does make strange bedfellows. 😉
Some of what Libertarians push I agree with; much of it I just don’t. But, because there appears to be a void, it may wind up being the future of political conservatism here to some degree.
LikeLike
Sails and RickyWeaver: I don’t dispute Haupt and Dasch were executed. Where you’re factually incorrect is in claiming either was “summarily executed.” They both stood trial. Who here has a problem with how they were treated? Their cases are entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Not sure why you brought them up, Sails.
LikeLike
RickyWeaver: It’s fine if you would be proud to be murdered, but not all people feel that way. One reason, among many, we take people to trial is to avoid murdering innocent people who didn’t commit a crime.
What a monstrous, anti-Christian approach to brush off “collateral damage.” That’s distressing.
LikeLike
I see where Rand Paul talks about finding some middle ground between libertarian ideas and more traditional conservatism and I’m good with that.
I will say that he seems perhaps not quite as far afield or inflexible/quirky as his dad was. 😉
LikeLike
hwesseli
For the “Fiscal Cliff” of Jan. 1, 2013 (the Bush tax cuts) go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts
See especially the last titled paragraph
“The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012”
for just how long ago this became the law of the land.
LikeLike