The NY Times, in the middle of trying to not go bankrupt and swatting away the scandal of printing a phony letter from the mayor of Paris, has lately turned to launching attacks at Obama in order to regain some of its stature. It's not surprising. From 2000 to 2008, they found good business in bashing Bush. Now that he and any Republican control of Congress is gone, the Times once again is choosing to promote its own agenda rather than focusing on being any kind of fair and balanced.

Oh, the Op/Ed page included the usual schlock from Mo Dowd, but there was another op/ed piece taking potshots at conservatism even though it was disguised as a criticism of Obama:

In what his aides billed as a major economic speech on Thursday, President-elect Barack Obama said that 2009 would “mark a clean break from a troubled past and set a new course for our nation.”

The “clean break” part of the statement seems an apt description for the spending part of Mr. Obama’s emerging, roughly $800 billion recovery package. He has outlined some $500 billion for bolstered unemployment benefits, aid to states and investment in the nation’s crumbling and outdated infrastructure.
But the tax-cut components of the package are hardly a clean break with the Bush years, presuming that is what Mr. Obama meant by the troubled past. To win the support of Republican lawmakers, the package is shaping up to include roughly $150 billion in business tax breaks, even though such breaks are widely recognized as packing very little bang for the buck when it comes to economic stimulus.

The business tax cut talked about here is the $3000 tax credit that a business will receive for spending at least $50,000 to hire a new employee. The writer is correct here. That, coupled with the tax breaks that businesses will undoubtedly receive for green efforts, will have little bang, since businesses will not spend tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to receive a few measly thousands of dollars in tax breaks.

The big thing that I took from that section, though? "Wow, they are comparing Obama to Bush! The Messiah being likened to the anti-christ in the Op/ed page of the NY Slime!"

The article has one more attack on tax cuts, though:

The proposed tax break — up to $500 for individuals and $1,000 for families — makes good sense for low- and middle-income Americans, because the money is likely to be spent quickly, thus boosting demand in a contracting economy. But higher up the income ladder — a couple making $200,000 a year is in the top 9 percent of households — tax cuts are likelier to be saved than spent, providing relatively little stimulus.

Tax breaks for 138 million taxpayers in the amount of $500 is $69 billion. Nine percent of that is $6.2 billion. That means that the plan will put over $63 billion back in the pockets of the american people who make less than $200,000 a year. So sinking $700 billion into banks, the auto industry, and credit card companies is okay. Five hundred billion spent on roads is okay. But try to give the people $69 billion of their own money and that is where the Times draws the line.

An article at Right Wing News about Vallejo, CA says that union deals for fire department retirees is a big part of the reason that Vallejo has declared bankruptcy. The main cause of Vallejo's failing is that they have followed the Democratic playbook to the letter. Anti-military, anti-business, anti-industry, and pro-union policies have led to Vallejo's downfall, and now, other cities across the country will be watching this town's bankruptcy proceedings very closely.

The start of Vallejo's woes came in 1996 when the Mare Island Naval Shipyard was closed. At the time of its closing there were 9,000 civilian employees.

In 1994, Wal-Mart proposed building a supercenter in Vallejo. Company officials at the time estimated that the store would provide about 400 jobs and would generate somewhere near $600,000 annually in sales taxes.

Area residents, of course, fought the construction by forming VALLEJOANS FOR RESPONSIBLE GROWTH. In an open letter to Lee Scott, they state their case for opposing the Wal-Mart:

Dear Mr. Scott:

This is an open letter – i.e., copies to the press - on behalf of the hundreds of Vallejoans, who have already signed our petition to this effect. I would like to inform you that Vallejoans for Responsible Growth:

Opposes any Wal-Mart “Supercenter” within the Vallejo city limits
and, in particular, at the old K-Mart site at Sonoma Boulevard and Redwood Street.

Urges Strict Adherence to the White Slough Specific Area Plan as approved by the Vallejo City Council on November 28, 1995 and the Solano County Board of Supervisors on January 9, 1996.

Simply put, a Wal-Mart “Supercenter” does not, in our view, comport with the economic interests of our city, proper land use, nor our vision of Vallejo as a desirable place to live in and to visit. We will do all in our power to ensure that Vallejo remains “Supercenter”-free.

Local citizens argued that there was no need for a Wal-Mart there because there was one four miles up the road in American Canyon.

Cut to four years later:

After four years of wrangling with the city and vocal opponents, Wal-Mart on Friday withdrew its application to build a supercenter in Vallejo’s White Slough area, a company spokesman said.

“Wal-Mart had hoped to open a new store in Vallejo, but current growth plans, coupled with the increased costs since the project was first proposed in 2004, have made the project infeasible at this time,” spokesman Kevin Loscotoff said.

The growth plan for Vallejo has been referred to as largely residential. The planners did not set aside any tracts of land for industrial or commercial business. When you have a town full of residents, and no business to speak of, then the main source of revenue for your town has to come from personal property tax. When the value of homes plummets, then the money cannot be collected.

As for the American Canyon store, acording to The American Canyon Eagle:

One year after the opening of the Wal-Mart Supercenter in American Canyon, business is good for the retail giant according to store manager Mike Sellick.

“We’ve exceeded all our (sales) goals,” Sellick said last week.

Mayor Leon Garcia pointed to the burgeoning growth of retail in American Canyon, and associated sales tax revenue, as a big reason for the city’s financial stability.

“It’s huge,” Garcia said of the store’s economic impact. “Development of Napa Junction took off, consequently we’re on an even keel. We’re on sound footing as a result.”