(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 Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

(ABC News) With the White House under fire for its new rule requiring employers including religious organizations to offer health insurance that fully covers birth control coverage, ABC News has learned that later today the White House —possibly President Obama himself —will likely announce an attempt to accommodate these religious groups.

The move, based on state models, will almost certainly not satisfy bishops and other religious leaders since it will preserve the goal of women employees having their birth control fully covered by health insurance.

My money’s on this being all smoke and mirrors, designed to deflect the controversy out of the limelight. ‘Cause the last thing Team Obama wants is to have to discuss his “signature legislation” during an election year.

Update: here we go, via WRAL

Women will still get guaranteed access to birth control without co-pays or premiums no matter where they work, a provision of Obama’s health care law that he insisted must remain. But religious universities and hospitals that see contraception as an unconscionable violation of their faith can refuse to cover it, and insurance companies will then have to step in to do so.

Seems to be more of semantics: religious organizations get to say they don’t cover objectionable issues, but, their insurance carriers still have to pay.

“No woman’s health should depend upon who she is or where she works or how much money she makes,” the president said in a statement to reporters at the White House. “Every woman should be in control of the decisions that affect her own health, period.”

If someone else is paying, they are no longer in control.

White House officials said Obama has the legal authority to order insurance companies to provide free contraception coverage directly to workers. He will demand it in a new rule.

And there’s one of the problems, government can tell any private entity how to run their business. It’s almost like ….socialism.

Anyhow, Champ had to retreat: the last thing he wants to do is have people think about his fantastically unpopular “signature legislation” during an election year.

(Reuters) A U.S. Roman Catholic television network said on Thursday it has filed suit in federal court to block President Barack Obama’s new rule on contraceptives, while a Catholic Church leader and top Republicans stepped up their criticism of Obama.

The rule, implemented on January 20, requires religious-oriented groups such as charities, hospitals and universities, but not churches, to provide coverage for birth control as other health insurance providers must do. The Catholic Church opposes most methods of birth control.

EWTN Global Catholic Network said it filed its case in U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Alabama against the U.S. Department of Health Human Services and other government agencies seeking to stop the imposition of the rule. The case asks the court to find the rule unconstitutional, it said.

The rule itself is part of ObamaCare, and if one group is completely exempted, then ObamaCare is then in violation of equal protection under the law (14th Amendment, Preamble of the Constitution, and Declaration of Independence). But, if the rule applies to all, then ObamaCare is in violation of the 1st, which states that “Congress shall pass no law….prohibiting the free exercise thereof (of religion). I have to wonder if challenging simply the rule has anything to do with so many Catholic institutions supporting the health care reform fiasco. I can’t find anything that shows that EWTN supported it, but….

Anyhow

In another development, Archbishop of New York Timothy Dolan, who is the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, called on Obama to back off from the rule and said it contradicted assurances Obama gave him during a White House meeting in November.

Ah. So, like so many liberals, Archbishop Dolan figured he wouldn’t actually have to be a part of a restrictive, overbearing law he supported. He figured he would be exempt. Kinda like how Liberals love the thought of higher taxes and globull warming restrictions, but always for That Guy.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

(Ottawa Citizen) China and Canada declared Thursday that bilateral relations have reached “a new level” following a series of multibillion-dollar trade and business agreements to ship additional Canadian petroleum, uranium and other products to the Asian superpower.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Chinese leadership said Thursday their new energy and economic co-operation agreements — as well as billions of dollars of private-sector deals — signed by the two countries over the past few days are unprecedented and will only open the door to additional trade and investment.

Granted, there could be room in there still for Keystone XL, but, Canada seems to be moving on, including the sale of uranium (read Jazz’s story for more on that). China is already getting oil out of the Gulf from Cuba, and has reached deals with Brazil for their deepwater drilled oil, of which Obama was nice enough to give $2 billion in taxpayer money to develop. Obama’s America? Left out in the cold.

Can’t blame this one on Bush, champ!

(IBD) The American public’s dependence on the federal government shot up 23% in just two years under President Obama, with 67 million now relying on some federal program, according to a newly released study by the Heritage Foundation.

The conservative think tank’s annual Index of Dependence on Government tracks money spent on housing, health, welfare, education subsidies and other federal programs that were “traditionally provided to needy people by local organizations and families.”

The two-year increase under Obama is the biggest two-year jump since Jimmy Carter was president, the data show.

The rise was driven mainly by increases in housing subsidies, an expansion in Medicaid and changes to the welfare system, along with a sharp rise in food stamps, the study found.

“You can’t get around the fact that policy decisions made over the past two years, on top of those made over the past several decades, are having a large effect on the pace of growth of the index,” said William Beach, who authored the Heritage study.

Lest one think I am solely blaming Obama and Democrats, this is a problem with all parties. While dependency was slow in rising during the Reagan years, it was also slow during the second half of the Clinton years. And rose during Bush 43. And Nixon. The elected political aristocracy in both parties continue to pass legislation that makes people more dependent on government, especially the federal government. All to get re-elected. This is one of the reasons we need congressional term limits. That way, legislators have to go home and live under the laws they created. And dependency breeds a loss of personal freedom.

Of course, Democrats want Americans dependent on the Central Government, because they want control over people. Hence, a Dem President and Congress increasing dependency 23%. 1 in 5 Americans are now dependent on government (not including government employees). Dependency jumped 13.84% in 2009. The highest jumps have mostly come under Democrat presidents. Heritage concludes

Perhaps the greatest danger is that the swelling ranks of Americans who enjoy government services and benefits for which they pay few or no taxes will lead to a spreading sense of entitlement that is simply incompatible with self-government. Are Americans completely indifferent to history’s many examples of republican government collapsing under the weight of just such populations? Are Americans near a tipping point in the nature of their government and the principles that tie it to civil life?

49.5% of Americans pay no federal income tax. And, yes, we can, in fact, Blame Bush for part of that. We can also Blame Obama.

(IBD) The American public’s dependence on the federal government shot up 23% in just two years under President Obama, with 67 million now relying on some federal program, according to a newly released study by the Heritage Foundation.

The conservative think tank’s annual Index of Dependence on Government tracks money spent on housing, health, welfare, education subsidies and other federal programs that were “traditionally provided to needy people by local organizations and families.”

The two-year increase under Obama is the biggest two-year jump since Jimmy Carter was president, the data show.

The rise was driven mainly by increases in housing subsidies, an expansion in Medicaid and changes to the welfare system, along with a sharp rise in food stamps, the study found.

“You can’t get around the fact that policy decisions made over the past two years, on top of those made over the past several decades, are having a large effect on the pace of growth of the index,” said William Beach, who authored the Heritage study.

Lest one think I am solely blaming Obama and Democrats, this is a problem with all parties. While dependency was slow in rising during the Reagan years, it was also slow during the second half of the Clinton years. And rose during Bush 43. And Nixon. The elected political aristocracy in both parties continue to pass legislation that makes people more dependent on government, especially the federal government. All to get re-elected. This is one of the reasons we need congressional term limits. That way, legislators have to go home and live under the laws they created. And dependency breeds a loss of personal freedom.

Of course, Democrats want Americans dependent on the Central Government, because they want control over people. Hence, a Dem President and Congress increasing dependency 23%. 1 in 5 Americans are now dependent on government (not including government employees). Dependency jumped 13.84% in 2009. The highest jumps have mostly come under Democrat presidents. Heritage concludes

Perhaps the greatest danger is that the swelling ranks of Americans who enjoy government services and benefits for which they pay few or no taxes will lead to a spreading sense of entitlement that is simply incompatible with self-government. Are Americans completely indifferent to history’s many examples of republican government collapsing under the weight of just such populations? Are Americans near a tipping point in the nature of their government and the principles that tie it to civil life?

49.5% of Americans pay no federal income tax. And, yes, we can, in fact, Blame Bush for part of that. We can also Blame Obama.

But, Obama is not giving up on forcing his views on American’s, reducing their freedom (via Hot Air)

(ABC News) President Obama “reinforced” his stance on the controversial contraception mandate while speaking at the Democrats’ annual retreat at Nationals Park in Washington, D.C. today, Senate Democrats said.

The retreat was closed to media.

Following President Obama’s speech at the retreat, a small group of Senate Democrats, mostly women, left the retreat early in order to hold a news conference on Capitol Hill to counter the Republicans’ news conference today at which they called for the mandate to be overturned.

Democrats said they will “fight strongly” to keep the mandate in place.

“It is our clear understanding from the administration that the president believes as we do, and the vast majority of the American women should have access to birth control,” Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said pointing out that 15 percent of women use birth control for medical issues. “It’s medicine, and women deserve their medicine.”

Yet, they do have access to contraception, regardless of whether their health insurance offers it or not.  They can get a prescription from a doctor and pick up birth control pills. No one is stopping them. They can go down to the local pharmacy and buy condoms! Amazing, eh? And easy! They’re even available at grocery stores and small places like 7/11, WaWa, Kangaroo, and so on. By this same argument the Democrats are making, every plan should include, say, laser eye surgery. For free. No co-pays. Yet, most don’t even include a small discount. Government is not mandating. But, 1 in 4 American’s will need some sort of corrective eye implements by age 40.

“The power to decide whether or not to use contraception lies with a woman – not her boss,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. “What is more intrusive than trying to allow an employer to make medical decisions for someone who works for them?”

As Allahpundit wrote Anyone want to field that question from ObamaCare supporter Kirsten Gillibrand? What about the Central Government’s power to decide? But, neither is deciding whether or not to use contraception, they are deciding whether it is in the health insurance plans. Government is mandating over the specific religious objections of Catholics, a clear violation of the 1st Amendment, along with the liberals own talking points about a “separation of Church and State.”

This is not a bug, though, nor a by-product. This is intentional. When you dig into ObamaCare, you see that one of the main points is to make sure private sector employers who offer health insurance drop their coverages. Central government would much rather have the private sector pay the $2,000 fine to the Central Government, rather than pay the $6-12 thousand per year per employee they are paying now, with the employees then joining the government health insurance exchange. With each company that ends up dropping their offers, the Democrats can demonize them and says “look how mean private sector companies are!”

If just one employee obtains insurance through the exchange, their company is responsible for paying the fine for every employee. In retail, there can be, roughly, 25% of the employees being part-time. Some companies offer insurance for them, but, none take it, because it is much more expensive. Some do not even offer to part time. Companies will not take the chance that just one obtains insurance through the exchange. They will drop their plans. And that’s beside the notion that the fine is cheaper than the out-lays.

Let’s not forget this from the other day

“Unless this rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences or drop health care coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so),” according to a letter from Archbishop Joseph Naumann of the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas.

“Drop health care coverage.” That’s the point. But, why Obama would want to pick this fight in a presidential election year is strange. Perhaps he thinks that no matter how shabbily he treats Catholics, they’ll still vote for him. Democrats treat lots of voter blocks poorly, and, yes, they are dumb enough to vote Democrats. Will this time be different? Perhaps Obama was trying to change the narrative, which is that he is incompetent, has no clue how to deal with the economy, and is against creating private sector jobs. Move the conversation away from Keystone XL, Solyndra and other failed “green” companies, the waste of Stimulus, and Fast and Furious. Or, perhaps, he just doesn’t know better, and made a whopper of a mistake in green lighting this agenda.

More: The Lonely Conservative: To hear them talk you’d think Republicans are trying to outlaw birth control. Kirsten Gillibrand even said a woman’s boss shouldn’t be the one to decide whether she uses birth control. This isn’t about choosing to use contraception, it’s about who pays for it, and the government has no business forcing people to pay for it when it violates their beliefs.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

But, Obama is not giving up on forcing his views on American’s, reducing their freedom (via Hot Air)

(ABC News) President Obama “reinforced” his stance on the controversial contraception mandate while speaking at the Democrats’ annual retreat at Nationals Park in Washington, D.C. today, Senate Democrats said.

The retreat was closed to media.

Following President Obama’s speech at the retreat, a small group of Senate Democrats, mostly women, left the retreat early in order to hold a news conference on Capitol Hill to counter the Republicans’ news conference today at which they called for the mandate to be overturned.

Democrats said they will “fight strongly” to keep the mandate in place.

“It is our clear understanding from the administration that the president believes as we do, and the vast majority of the American women should have access to birth control,” Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said pointing out that 15 percent of women use birth control for medical issues. “It’s medicine, and women deserve their medicine.”

Yet, they do have access to contraception, regardless of whether their health insurance offers it or not.  They can get a prescription from a doctor and pick up birth control pills. No one is stopping them. They can go down to the local pharmacy and buy condoms! Amazing, eh? And easy! They’re even available at grocery stores and small places like 7/11, WaWa, Kangaroo, and so on. By this same argument the Democrats are making, every plan should include, say, laser eye surgery. For free. No co-pays. Yet, most don’t even include a small discount. Government is not mandating. But, 1 in 4 American’s will need some sort of corrective eye implements by age 40.

“The power to decide whether or not to use contraception lies with a woman – not her boss,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. “What is more intrusive than trying to allow an employer to make medical decisions for someone who works for them?”

As Allahpundit wrote Anyone want to field that question from ObamaCare supporter Kirsten Gillibrand? What about the Central Government’s power to decide? But, neither is deciding whether or not to use contraception, they are deciding whether it is in the health insurance plans. Government is mandating over the specific religious objections of Catholics, a clear violation of the 1st Amendment, along with the liberals own talking points about a “separation of Church and State.”

This is not a bug, though, nor a by-product. This is intentional. When you dig into ObamaCare, you see that one of the main points is to make sure private sector employers who offer health insurance drop their coverages. Central government would much rather have the private sector pay the $2,000 fine to the Central Government, rather than pay the $6-12 thousand per year per employee they are paying now, with the employees then joining the government health insurance exchange. With each company that ends up dropping their offers, the Democrats can demonize them and says “look how mean private sector companies are!”

If just one employee obtains insurance through the exchange, their company is responsible for paying the fine for every employee. In retail, there can be, roughly, 25% of the employees being part-time. Some companies offer insurance for them, but, none take it, because it is much more expensive. Some do not even offer to part time. Companies will not take the chance that just one obtains insurance through the exchange. They will drop their plans. And that’s beside the notion that the fine is cheaper than the out-lays.

Let’s not forget this from the other day

“Unless this rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences or drop health care coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so),” according to a letter from Archbishop Joseph Naumann of the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas.

“Drop health care coverage.” That’s the point. But, why Obama would want to pick this fight in a presidential election year is strange. Perhaps he thinks that no matter how shabbily he treats Catholics, they’ll still vote for him. Democrats treat lots of voter blocks poorly, and, yes, they are dumb enough to vote Democrats. Will this time be different? Perhaps Obama was trying to change the narrative, which is that he is incompetent, has no clue how to deal with the economy, and is against creating private sector jobs. Move the conversation away from Keystone XL, Solyndra and other failed “green” companies, the waste of Stimulus, and Fast and Furious. Or, perhaps, he just doesn’t know better, and made a whopper of a mistake in green lighting this agenda.

More: The Lonely Conservative: To hear them talk you’d think Republicans are trying to outlaw birth control. Kirsten Gillibrand even said a woman’s boss shouldn’t be the one to decide whether she uses birth control. This isn’t about choosing to use contraception, it’s about who pays for it, and the government has no business forcing people to pay for it when it violates their beliefs.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Did Catholic organizations support Obamacare because they either assumed or were told that they would get an exception based on their religious beliefs?

Because if that is true, then essentially they agreed to support an infringement on others’ freedoms just so long as their own would be preserved. How did they think that would eventually work out?

Now, don’t get me wrong; of course I am delighted that Catholics are angry with the Obama administration.

However, I’m not exactly freaking out that they didn’t get what they bargained for, after they* gleefully endorsed curtailing your and my freedoms.

That’s a heck of a good point. Many of the Catholic organizations did support ObamaCare, though so many practicing Catholics did not. Much of the Catholic leadership has tended to lean Democrat over the past 20 or so years. Did they think, like so many liberals do, that any Central Government intrusion in the lives of Americans would only apply to That Guy and not themselves? That said, there are a lot of stories going around that Obama might cave, at least to some degree. Michael Gerson discusses

David Axelrod is now signaling that there “may be compromises that can be reached” on the Obama administration’s contraceptive mandate.  Or maybe he is just proposing a longer “grace period or time period in order to work this thing through.” I’m sure he would welcome a grace period extended just beyond the November election.

In either case, the Obama administration is clearly growing less confident in its current position — a requirement that religious hospitals, charities and universities provide insurance coverage that includes contraceptives and drugs that can cause early abortions.  “We want to resolve it in an appropriate way,” says Axelrod.

Yet Axelrod still refuses to concede anything on the central issue of the debate.  He maintains that “extended, affiliated institutions like hospitals and universities” should be regulated like an Apple Store or 7-11, since all employ and serve non-members. This represents a deep misunderstanding of religion itself.  Catholics serve non-Catholics precisely because that is the calling of Catholicism.  Christians serve non-Christians because that is one of their defining missions in the world.  There is nothing “extended” or “affiliated” about a Catholic shelter for abused women or the homeless.  Such institutions are Catholic in motivation, Catholic in inspiration, Catholic through and through.

Alexrod is still insisting on the forced secularization of religious institutions. He wants compromise without the inconvenience of making concessions.

Many people rightfully point out that many Catholic hospitals, businesses, and organizations already offer contraception and sterilization in their insurance plans. Yes, they do. But, those who offer this defense miss the greater point: it was the choice of those hospitals, businesses, and organizations to offer those health plans, not the governments. That is the point: the American federal government, and, to a degree, the state and local governments, should stop mandating everything. Liberals like to talk about government staying out of our bedrooms, then they pass laws that invade our lives at all levels (let’s not forget, Republicans can do this too.)

With each little law passed, citizens lose the freedom to make their own decisions. Thomas Jefferson was adamant about including term limits in the Constitution for Congress (and the President), so that we would have citizen legislators who would serve a few terms and then go back into the private sector and live under the laws they passed. Right now, legislators pass laws and do not have to actually live under them. We have idiot Democrat Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper saying she wouldn’t have voted for ObamaCare had she known what was in it. That’s why you read the bill, chump. And when a law is so broad that it doesn’t actually define most things, but gives the Sec Of Health the power to make it up as she goes along, we have a major problem.

BTW, liberals, remember, if a Republican wins in 2012 (or beyond), he/she will get to appoint a new Sec. Of Health, who can than make up their own rules.

The freedom to make your own choices is what made America great. Congress doesn’t want that.

Anyhow, the Constitution specifically says that “Congress shall pass no law….that denies the free practice thereof (of religion)”. ObamaCare is that law.

Did Catholic organizations support Obamacare because they either assumed or were told that they would get an exception based on their religious beliefs?

Because if that is true, then essentially they agreed to support an infringement on others’ freedoms just so long as their own would be preserved. How did they think that would eventually work out?

Now, don’t get me wrong; of course I am delighted that Catholics are angry with the Obama administration.

However, I’m not exactly freaking out that they didn’t get what they bargained for, after they* gleefully endorsed curtailing your and my freedoms.

That’s a heck of a good point. Many of the Catholic organizations did support ObamaCare, though so many practicing Catholics did not. Much of the Catholic leadership has tended to lean Democrat over the past 20 or so years. Did they think, like so many liberals do, that any Central Government intrusion in the lives of Americans would only apply to That Guy and not themselves? That said, there are a lot of stories going around that Obama might cave, at least to some degree. Michael Gerson discusses

David Axelrod is now signaling that there “may be compromises that can be reached” on the Obama administration’s contraceptive mandate.  Or maybe he is just proposing a longer “grace period or time period in order to work this thing through.” I’m sure he would welcome a grace period extended just beyond the November election.

In either case, the Obama administration is clearly growing less confident in its current position — a requirement that religious hospitals, charities and universities provide insurance coverage that includes contraceptives and drugs that can cause early abortions.  “We want to resolve it in an appropriate way,” says Axelrod.

Yet Axelrod still refuses to concede anything on the central issue of the debate.  He maintains that “extended, affiliated institutions like hospitals and universities” should be regulated like an Apple Store or 7-11, since all employ and serve non-members. This represents a deep misunderstanding of religion itself.  Catholics serve non-Catholics precisely because that is the calling of Catholicism.  Christians serve non-Christians because that is one of their defining missions in the world.  There is nothing “extended” or “affiliated” about a Catholic shelter for abused women or the homeless.  Such institutions are Catholic in motivation, Catholic in inspiration, Catholic through and through.

Alexrod is still insisting on the forced secularization of religious institutions. He wants compromise without the inconvenience of making concessions.

Many people rightfully point out that many Catholic hospitals, businesses, and organizations already offer contraception and sterilization in their insurance plans. Yes, they do. But, those who offer this defense miss the greater point: it was the choice of those hospitals, businesses, and organizations to offer those health plans, not the governments. That is the point: the American federal government, and, to a degree, the state and local governments, should stop mandating everything. Liberals like to talk about government staying out of our bedrooms, then they pass laws that invade our lives at all levels (let’s not forget, Republicans can do this too.)

With each little law passed, citizens lose the freedom to make their own decisions. Thomas Jefferson was adamant about including term limits in the Constitution for Congress (and the President), so that we would have citizen legislators who would serve a few terms and then go back into the private sector and live under the laws they passed. Right now, legislators pass laws and do not have to actually live under them. We have idiot Democrat Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper saying she wouldn’t have voted for ObamaCare had she known what was in it. That’s why you read the bill, chump. And when a law is so broad that it doesn’t actually define most things, but gives the Sec Of Health the power to make it up as she goes along, we have a major problem.

BTW, liberals, remember, if a Republican wins in 2012 (or beyond), he/she will get to appoint a new Sec. Of Health, who can than make up their own rules.

The freedom to make your own choices is what made America great. Congress doesn’t want that.

Anyhow, the Constitution specifically says that “Congress shall pass no law….that denies the free practice thereof (of religion)”. ObamaCare is that law.