Articles
Features
Resources
About Us
 
Search
Newsletter Signup
Enter your email address to receive the In Perrspective newsletter:
Resource Center
  • Polls
  • U.S. News
  • Int'l News
  • Document Library
  • Online & Print Mags
  • Columns/Blogs
  • Elections & Voting
  • Key Data Sources
  • Think Tanks
  • Reading List
  • Oregon Resources
  • Support the Troops
  • Columns and Blogs
  • AmericaBlog
  • Atrios
  • Attytood
  • Bad Reporter
  • Calculated Risk
  • Crooked Timber
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Daily Beast
  • Daily Kos
  • Brad Delong
  • Economist's View
  • E.J. Dionne
  • Kevin Drum
  • EPI Blog
  • FiveThirtyEight
  • FireDogLake
  • Glenn Greenwald
  • Huffington Post
  • Hullabaloo
  • The Intercept
  • Mark Kleiman
  • Ezra Klein
  • Sarah Kliff
  • Paul Krugman
  • Rachel Maddow
  • Mad Kane
  • Media Matters
  • Memeorandum
  • Moderate Voice
  • Off the Charts Blog
  • Charles Pierce
  • Political Animal
  • Political Humor
  • The Politico
  • Satirical Political
  • Sarah Posner
  • Andrew Sullivan
  • Talk2Action
  • Talking Points Memo
  • Think Progress
  • Vox
  • Wonkblog
  • Wonkette
  • Matthew Yglesias
  • -- more --
  • February 24, 2017
    Iraq's Mosul Offensive, Mocked by Trump, Has ISIS on the Run

    While Americans have been focused on the growing crisis surrounding the Trump administration's tangled web of ties to Russia, the good news coming from Iraq has gone largely unnoticed. After successfully liberating eastern Mosul from ISIS fighters, Iraqi forces have launched their final offensive to retake the western of the city from the Islamic State. With close support from U.S. advisers and bolstered by Shiite militia units, some 40,000 Iraqi troops hope to eliminate the remaining, well-entrenched ISIS gunmen over the next six months.

    The progress in freeing the city of some 800,000 people captured by the Islamic State in 2014 has brought a new sense of optimism. As Rukmini Callimachi reported two weeks ago for the New York Times, in eastern Mosul "the streets were busy with civilian traffic" and remarking "what stunned me is quickly life has returned." In Baghdad on Monday, U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis promised, "The coalition forces are in support of this operation and we will continue...with the accelerated effort to destroy ISIS." Meanwhile on state run television, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi announced "a new dawn" while urging his troops "to move bravely forward to liberate what is left of the city."

    But the one voice that has been silent about the positive developments from Mosul is the one you'd normally least expect. But it should be no surprise that President Donald Trump has nothing to say now. After all, he predicted the attack on Mosul would be a "total disaster."

    Take, for example, candidate Trump's volley aimed at U.S. and Iraqi leaders during the third presidential debate on October 19, 2016:

    "About three months ago, I started reading that they want to get the leaders and they're going to attack Mosul. Whatever happened to the element of surprise, OK? We announce we're going after Mosul. I have been reading about going after Mosul now for about -- how long is it, Hillary, three months? These people have all left. They've all left.

    The element of surprise. Douglas MacArthur, George Patton spinning in their graves when they see the stupidity of our country."

    Mosul, of course, is the second largest city in Iraq. Its recapture is a strategic necessity if ISIS to be beaten back and crushed. That it must and would be liberated was certainly no secret. Signs of the build-up to encircle the city would be unmistakable. Iraqi forces would need to give civilians time to flee and allow those fighters who would to drop their arms. As U.S. military experts like retired colonel and former dean of the Army War College Jeffrey McClausland made clear, "What this shows is that Trump doesn't know a damned thing about military strategy."

    Nevertheless, Trump's kept up his withering criticism of the Mosul operation. As the New York Times recounted after that debate:

    In the debate on Wednesday and on the campaign trail, Mr. Trump has all but accused the military of aiding and abetting the escape of the Islamic State's top leaders from Mosul. "By the time we attack them, all the guys that we want are going to be gone," Mr. Trump told supporters in Charlotte, N.C. last week. "They're very smart. How stupid are the people that run our country?"

    On October 23, Donald Trump took to Twitter to answer his own question:

    As NPR documented on November 1, Trump wasn't done there:

    In the debate on Wednesday and on the campaign trail, Mr. Trump has all but accused the military of aiding and abetting the escape of the Islamic State's top leaders from Mosul. "By the time we attack them, all the guys that we want are going to be gone," Mr. Trump told supporters in Charlotte, N.C. last week. "They're very smart. How stupid are the people that run our country?"

    And Trump still wasn't done slandering President Obama, Hillary Clinton, the Pentagon and the Iraqi government. As CNN reported just one day before voters went to the polls in the U.S.

    The Republican presidential nominee knocked US officials as a "group of losers" for not launching a "surprise" attack and said he was convinced the offensive -- which is led by the Iraqi military -- was launched "for political reasons" to benefit his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. He suggested she would get "credit" for its success.

    Trump's repeated criticisms of the ongoing military operation in Mosul come despite forces on the ground making key gains.

    "Whatever happened to the element of surprise, right?...What a group of losers we have. And now it's a very tough battle, they're dug in. It's a very -- much tougher than they thought," Trump said at a campaign event in Tampa, Florida. "We need different thinking in this country, folks. They should have kept their mouths shut."

    Those remarks came after he questioned the core rationale behind the military offensive, which is central to defeating the terrorist group in Iraq.

    "Who benefits by us getting Mosul?" Trump asked the previous night during a rally in Hershey, Pennsylvania. "You know it's going to benefit Iran. We're not going to benefit. Because Iran is taking over Iraq."

    Ironically, Trump will benefit "by us getting Mosul." As Middle East policy expert Andrew Exum summed it up recently in The Atlantic, "Donald Trump will defeat ISIS and it will be mostly due to the work of his predecessor."

    The dysfunction at the highest levels of the American government right now obscures a dramatic reality: Donald Trump is going to defeat the Islamic State, and Americans need to be fine with that.

    Most Americans will--and should be--fine with that. So far, the only one who isn't seems to be Donald Trump himself. While Vice President Mike Pence visited Iraq on February 18 and "underscored the urgency of continued progress in the fight against ISIS, Iraq's economic recovery, and cooperation to liberate Mosul," during his February 10 phone call with Prime Minister Abadi Trump could only muster congratulations to "Iraqi forces on their recent progress in Mosul." But in his only public statement on the matter, on February 16 President Trump for some reason pointed to the Mosul operation as exactly what didn't want to do in response to recent Russian moves, including Putin's test launch of a banned cruise missile and buzzing U.S. warships with Russian jets.

    Q: Can we conclude there will be no response to these particular provocations?

    THE PRESIDENT: I'm not going to tell you anything about what response I do. I don't talk about military response. I don't say I'm going into Mosul in four months. "We are going to attack Mosul in four months." Then three months later: "We are going to attack Mosul in one month." "Next week, we are going to attack Mosul." In the meantime, Mosul is very, very difficult. Do you know why? Because I don't talk about military, and I don't talk about certain other things. You're going to be surprised to hear that. And, by the way, my whole campaign, I'd say that.

    For once, Donald Trump is telling the truth. He complained about the Mosul offensive throughout his campaign. But to take credit for its eventual success--which he surely will try to do--Trump will have do something he never does.

    Admit he was wrong.

    Perrspective 7:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Share

    February 21, 2017
    No Trump Tax Returns? No GOP Tax Cuts

    Over the past week, the White House has been completely overwhelmed by the Trump administration's mushrooming medley of Moscow outrages. But to what Vox labelled the "3 Trump-Russia Scandals"--potential Trump collusion with Russia against the Hillary Clinton campaign, possible Trump lies about Michael Flynn's outreach to the Putin government and purported kompromat Russian intelligence may be holding over the American president--must be added a fourth. What are the conflicts of interest created by the Trump Organization's extensive business ties to Putin's kleptocratic petro-state?

    With the Trump empire cut off by American banks, the family business has become dependent on Germany's Deutsche Bank and investors from Russia. As Donald Trump, Jr. summed up in 2008:

    "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."

    That alone provides one powerful reason why President Trump must release his tax returns to the American people. It's not just a matter of following four decades of presidential practice. Simply put, we need to know if our president is being paid in rubles.

    But there's another reason President Trump must come clean about his finances. In recent days, Trump has promised he will soon unveil a "phenomenal" tax reform plan that calls for "lowering the overall tax burden of American businesses, big league." But that isn't the only promise The Donald has made to American taxpayers about his reform scheme. The self-proclaimed "voice" of "the forgotten men and women of our country"--the same man praised by family and friends as a "blue-collar billionaire"--made this pledge last year:

    "It reduces or eliminates most of the deductions and loopholes available to special interests and to the very rich. In other words, it's going to cost me a fortune -- which is actually true -- while preserving charitable giving and mortgage interest deductions, very importantly." [Emphasis mine.]

    To which the only appropriate response to the Pathological Liar-in-Chief is, "Prove it."

    After all, Donald Trump has yet to demonstrate that he pays Uncle Sam anything at all. As the New York Times discovered in October, thanks to tax code advantages for real estate investors like himself Trump may have owed no federal taxes for almost two decades:

    The 1995 tax records, never before disclosed, reveal the extraordinary tax benefits that Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, derived from the financial wreckage he left behind in the early 1990s through mismanagement of three Atlantic City casinos, his ill-fated foray into the airline business and his ill-timed purchase of the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan.

    Tax experts hired by The Times to analyze Mr. Trump's 1995 records said that tax rules especially advantageous to wealthy filers would have allowed Mr. Trump to use his $916 million loss to cancel out an equivalent amount of taxable income over an 18-year period.

    As Matthew Yglesias explained in Vox, "You don't need 'genius' to pull off Trump's tax avoidance -- you just need to be rich."

    Rich, that is, and in the real estate business. The key, as tax expert David Cay Johnston documented, is the manipulation of "net operating losses" on top of the "already liberal tax breaks Congress gives big real-estate owners."

    Trump dumped the real costs of all this on investors who saw gold in his brand name, but who lost everything even as he was paid tens of millions of tax-free dollars...

    NOLs are incredibly valuable. These tax losses can be used to offset salaries, business profits, and income from, say, a television show or making neckties in China. Thanks to his $916 million of NOLs, Trump could earn much over 18 years in salaries, profits, and interest, but pay no income taxes.

    Without Donald Trump's tax returns, there is still much we do not know about the shell game that enabled the reality TV star to stiff Uncle Sam. Still, the most grotesque aspect of Trump's schemes may be that most of them are probably perfectly legal. (Most, but not all. Trump's use of the unlicensed charitable Trump Foundation to pay off legal costs generated by his for-profit businesses almost certainly violate laws on "self-dealing." And Trump apparently used his Foundation to skirt taxes on his appearance and speaker fees by having payments made directly to his "charity.")

    But the self-proclaimed "blue-collar billionaire" supposedly devoted to "the forgotten Americans" isn't content to rest with the gains--ill-gotten and otherwise--he has withheld from the IRS. Donald Trump has promised that as President, he would implement a new set of windfalls for himself and his children.

    Over the past year, Trump has released not one, but three tax plans. In each, the top income tax rate is lowered. (In its current incarnation, that top marginal rate would drop from 39.8 to 33 percent.) But even bigger winnings for the Trump Organization will come from his proposed reduction in business taxes. As he summed it up during his disastrous debate against Hillary Clinton:

    Under my plan, I'll be reducing taxes tremendously, from 35 percent to 15 percent for companies, small and big businesses.

    As Trump spokesman Steven Cheung confirmed, that same 15 percent rate will also apply to so-called "pass-through" businesses which pay taxes on revenue as personal income. Businesses, that is, like Donald Trump's.

    That one change to the tax code wouldn't just drain an estimated $1.5 trillion from federal coffers over the next decade. That pass-through payday for plutocrats would also redirect millions of dollars from Uncle Sam to Donald J. Trump and family--every year. As Trump's tax attorneys explained in his campaign's March 2016 required financial disclosure:

    "You hold interests as the sole or principal owner in approximately 500 separate entities. These entities are referred to and do business as The Trump Organization. ... Because you operate these businesses almost exclusively through sole proprietorships and/or closely held partnerships, your personal federal income tax returns are inordinately large and complex for an individual."

    And that would mean really YUGE savings for The Donald.

    As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) recently explained, "Pass-through income is claimed by business entities that aren't subject to the corporate income tax, which currently has a top statutory rate of 35 percent (though most corporations pay an effective tax rate considerably lower than 35 percent). Pass-through income is business income that "passes through" the business and is instead reported on the individual tax returns of the business owners and taxed at the owners' tax rates."

    But as CBPP also documented, "'pass-throughs' are not synonymous with 'small businesses' and "pass-through income is highly concentrated at the top:"

    Mr. Trump, who has proposed a 15 percent corporate tax rate, proposes a pass-through rate of 15 percent as well. The Trump pass-through proposal would be an expensive tax cut that would flow primarily to the wealthiest Americans. That's because more than two-thirds of pass-through business income flows to the highest-income 1 percent of tax filers.

    Many businesses, such as law firms, and groups of wealthy investors choose to be taxed as pass-through entities instead of as corporations and often do so to lower the overall taxes they owe. In recent decades, many businesses and their owners have reaped sizable tax savings by doing so. A special 15 percent tax rate on pass-through income such as the Trump tax plan proposes would offer them another large tax cut.

    As the Washington Post reported, "Trump would tax pass-through income at a rate of 15 percent, compared to the 40 percent personal income tax rate a wealthy business owner would pay today." And as the Post's Jim Tankersley explained, one of those wealthy business owners is Donald Trump himself:

    A little-noticed provision in Donald Trump's tax reform plan has the potential to deliver a large tax cut to companies in the Republican presidential nominee's vast business empire, experts say.

    Trump's plan would dramatically reduce taxes on what is known in tax circles as "pass-through" entities, which do not pay corporate income taxes, but whose owners are taxed at individual rates on their share of profits. Those entities are the most common structure for small businesses and increasingly popular for larger ones as well. They are also a cornerstone of the Trump Organization. On his 2015 presidential financial disclosure report, Trump listed holdings of more than 200 limited liability corporations, which is a form of pass-through.

    It's no wonder Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, said "It's a really nice deal" for Trump and pass-through owners like him. It was with good reason Hillary Clinton called it "the Trump Loophole."

    But it's not the only one The Donald is proposing for himself, Ivanka, Eric, Donald Junior and his other offspring.

    As you might recall, his campaign finance disclosures claim he has a net worth of $10 billion and earned $557 million between January 2015 and May 2016. While his income sources are no doubt diverse, President Trump would surely reap millions from candidate Trump's income tax and capital gains tax rate reductions alone. And if he is telling the truth about his net worth, The Donald's heirs could pocket over $7 billion from his promise to do away with the estate tax now paid by only the richest 0.2 percent of family fortunes.

    Now, that $270 billion in lost revenue over the next decade from the estate tax repeal will have to be made up somehow. But the plans currently in discussion by the Trump administration and House Republicans led by Paul Ryan would make that hemorrhage of red ink far, far larger. As I noted in November:

    The man who apparently hasn't paid Uncle Sam a penny in 20 years has proposed a tax cut scheme that will enrich him, his businesses and his children for years to come. Whether based on The Donald's own outline or House Speaker Paul Ryan's "Better Way" budget blueprint, the Trump Tax Cuts of 2017 will drain roughly $6 trillion from the United States Treasury over the next 10 years. Unfortunately for those forgotten men and women who supported him, decades of evidence show that Trump's massive supply-side windfall for the wealthy won't make him "the greatest jobs president that God ever created." What the 45th President and his Republican allies will accomplish, however, is the greatest expansion in income inequality since Ronald Reagan ambled into the White House.

    To help offset the dramatic increase in national debt their tax cut windfalls for the wealthy would inevitably produce, President Trump and Speaker Ryan are turning to three tactics. Each is now touting a 20 percent "border adjustment tax" optimistically forecast to raise $1.2 trillion over the next decade. (This de facto tax on importers (and consumers) faces a lot of pushback from Senate Republicans.) In addition, previous proposals from Trump and Ryan have called for draconian cuts in spending, nearly 70 percent of which would come from programs for low and modest income Americans. And then there is the perennial Republican promise to "close loopholes" and "end tax breaks" which now cost the United States Treasury almost $1.5 trillion a year.

    Unfortunately, neither Donald Trump nor Paul Ryan have ever provided much detail on just which loopholes they'd be willing to close. But what Ryan and Trump Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have both done is to lie about who will bear the burden. As Ryan comically put it in 2012, "We're proposing to keep revenues where they are, but to clear up all the special interest loopholes, which are uniquely enjoyed by higher income earners, in exchange for lower rates for everyone." For his part, Mnuchin promised during his confirmation hearings that "I think we want to make sure that tax reform doesn't increase the size of the deficit." But that's not all he promised:

    "Any tax cuts for the upper class will be offset by less deductions that pay for it."

    But as James Kwak documented in "The Deduction Fairy," Mnuchin's December pledge simply isn't mathematically possible. "When it comes to the truly rich, however, there just aren't enough deductions out there to eliminate." This is precisely the trap Mitt Romney fell into during the 2012 election, when he guaranteed that "for high-income folks, we are going to cut back on that, so we make sure that the top 1 percent keeps paying the current share they're paying or more." As Ezra Klein documented that August, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center tried their best to make Romney's promise work:

    They even tested the plan under a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney's economic advisers, that promises "implausibly large growth effects" from tax cuts. The fact that they couldn't make Romney's numbers work even when they stacked all these scenarios on top of one another shows just how impossible Romney's promises are...

    The reason Romney's plan doesn't work is very simple. The size of the tax cut he's proposing for the rich is larger than all of the tax expenditures that go to the rich put together. As such, it is mathematically impossible for him to keep his promise to make sure the top one percent keeps paying the same or more.

    Fast forward to 2017. Now, President Donald Trump isn't, as he boasted, the exception to the rule. He is the rule. If he pays any federal taxes at all, his check to Uncle Sam will only get smaller under his own plan. After all, he calls for cutting the top income tax rate from 39.6 to 33 percent and limiting the capital gains tax rate to 20 percent from 23.8 percent now. Paul Ryan would go even further by dropping the top rate on investment income to 16.5 percent. And in his biggest win of all, President Trump will slash the business tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent for all companies, including pass-through businesses like the Trump Organization.

    Two days after his inauguration, Donald Trump's serial fabulist Kellyanne Conway informed the American people that they would not be seeing the new President's tax returns. As she lectured George Stephanopoulos of ABC's This Week:

    "The White House response is that he's not going to release his tax returns. We litigated this all through the election. People didn't care. They voted for him, and let me make this very clear: Most Americans are very focused on what their tax returns will look like while President Trump is in office, not what his look like. And you know full well that President Trump and his family are complying with all the ethical rules, everything they need to do to step away from his businesses and be a full-time president."

    Of course, what Conway said then was neither true nor acceptable. (At the time she spoke, a poll showed 74 percent of Americans wanted Trump to release his tax returns.) But now, Donald Trump isn't just a full-time president. He may also be a full-time Russian stooge and Vladimir Putin business partner. Which is why the 23 Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee who voted down New Jersey Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell's motion to use a 1924 law to require President Trump to release 10 years of tax returns aren't just stonewalling the American people. His GOP aiders and abettors are preventing Donald Trump from making good on his promise that his tax plan "is going to cost me a fortune."

    At the end of the day, whatever tax scheme emerges from the Republican-controlled Congress will be horrible public policy. But by using the budget reconciliation process, the GOP majority will need only a simple majority of 51 votes to pass the Senate. Regardless, the message from Americans of all political stripes should be the same.

    No Trump tax returns, no GOP tax cuts.

    Perrspective 8:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Share

    February 13, 2017
    Trump Resistance is Similar to Tea Party, But with Truth on its Side

    On Feb. 8, 2009, CNBC talking head Rick Santelli helped launched the tea party movement with an epic rant on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. But eight years later, as Republicans are now learning the hard way, the tea bag is on the other cheek.

    The signs of sizable, sustained, and seriously angry opposition to President Trump and the Republican agenda are everywhere. Trump's first weekend was marked by the Women's March that brought more than 3 million Americans to streets of cities and towns in states red and blue. His disturbing and dangerous executive order on immigration and travel was met with thousands of protesters in airports across the country, while an army of lawyers mobilized to protect visa holders and legal U.S. residents from Trump's draconian Muslim ban. Meanwhile, massive crowds are greeting GOP Congress members at town hall meetings and public events back in their districts, causing abortion-restricting, Obamacare-repealing, Medicare-privatizing, and climate change-denying hardliners to flee from their own constituents.

    All in all, the effect is precisely what the organizers of the Indivisible movement sought to create. Those Democratic congressional staffers who suffered through the tea party onslaught of 2009 and 2010 are turning the tables on their tormenters. And as Sarah Kliff reported in Vox this week, many veteran right-wing foot soldiers from the halcyon days of the tea party are grudgingly acknowledging the turnaround:

    "Eight years ago we were in the same boat," says Dean Clancy, who previously ran policy for Freedom Works, a Tea Party-affiliated group that advocated against the health care law. "We were stunned, angry, fearful, besieged, paranoid, but we were also liberated. The feeling was wonderful, like you're the rebels in Star Wars"...

    Clancy, the Tea Party activist, sees the appeal of the moment for liberals. "There's nothing more American than protest, and few things more enjoyable," he says. "I suspect Trump must appear to them as Obama appeared to us, as a threat to everything we believe and cherish. You have to respect them for resisting that."

    But you have to respect the liberal activists and progressive protesters of 2017 for something else: They have the truth on their side.

    Continue reading at Daily Kos.

    Perrspective 1:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Share

    Find Entries
    Find by Keyword(s):
    Syndicate:
    Recent Entries

    Iraq's Mosul Offensive, Mocked by Trump, Has ISIS on the Run
    February 24, 2017
    Comments (0)

    No Trump Tax Returns? No GOP Tax Cuts
    February 21, 2017
    Comments (0)

    Trump Resistance is Similar to Tea Party, But with Truth on its Side
    February 13, 2017
    Comments (0)

    Trump Joins Long List of Republicans Who Threatened Judges
    February 6, 2017
    Comments (0)

    Impeach a President for Incompetence? Trump Muslim Ban Adviser Says Yes
    February 1, 2017
    Comments (0)

    Trump Inherits the Obama Boom
    January 30, 2017
    Comments (0)

    Trump's Gag Rule Silences Government During Disasters Like These
    January 25, 2017
    Comments (0)

    Lincoln's Heir
    January 25, 2017
    Comments (0)

    After Obamacare Report, GOP Wants to Kill the CBO. Again.
    January 19, 2017
    Comments (0)

    The Simple, Sinister Reason for the GOP's Never-ending War on Obamacare
    January 15, 2017
    Comments (0)

    Monthly Archives
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • Category Archives
  • 9/11
  • Barking Mad
  • Budget/Deficit
  • Bush Admin.
  • Business
  • China
  • Congress
  • Contests
  • Culture War
  • Democrats
  • Donald Trump
  • Economy
  • Education
  • Election '04
  • Election '06
  • Election '08
  • Election '10
  • Election '12
  • Election '14
  • Election '16
  • Energy
  • Environment
  • Foreign Policy
  • GOP Quotes
  • Health Care
  • Image Gallery
  • Immigration
  • Iran
  • Iraq
  • John Kerry
  • Media
  • Nat'l Security
  • North Korea
  • Obama Admin.
  • Republicans
  • Soc. Security
  • Sports
  • Supreme Court
  • Taxes
  • Technology
  • Terrorism
  • The States
  • Top 10 Lists
  • Torture
  •  

    Copyright © 2004 - 2017 PERRspectives.com. All Rights Reserved.
    Visit the Contact page to report problems with the site.