President to help middle class by paying them in fairness. Middle class not sure if it constitutes legal tender.

Not that Buffett

Every now and then, an issue comes up that allows me to truly gauge the intelligence of the American people.  Well, I’m excited to report that such an issue has arisen: the Buffett Rule.  No, we’re not talking about my personal hero Jimmy Buffett; he’s too drunk to be paying attention.  I’m talking about that annoying old man Warren Buffett, who has allowed his inability to satisfy his secretary sexually financially to quickly absorb as much of my talk radio time as Jesse Jackson and his merry band of hoodie-wearers.  In case you didn’t know, Mr. Buffett, a man worth billions, has made it part of his bucket list to complain about how he pays a lower overall tax rate than his secretary.  This has caused many to offer him the practical option of simply paying more in taxes if he’d prefer.  In fact, he can even pay my taxes while he’s at it. Not surprisingly, the idea of a rich guy asking the feds to take more of his money is something the lefties can’t ignore; especially when all of their other economic plans have been as successful as a one-armed man rowing his boat in a straight line.  So, instead of making an effort to propose an actual budget that could get a single vote in the House of Representatives, our little dictator in chief has asked the Senate to vote on the “Buffett Rule.”

Mr Obama is promoting the ‘Buffett rule’, which would set a minimum tax of 30 per cent on the income of millionaires, as he attempts to establish a stark contrast with Mitt Romney, his Republican challenger and a former private equity executive.

You may be asking why I’m using the Buffett Rule as a barometer of American intelligence.  Well, the last time I looked, a majority of Americans supports the proposition of “making the rich pay their fair share,” even if they can’t tell you what “fair” means.  To put it simply: if anyone is in favor of this proposition, then they obviously sustained severe brain damage.  And to support this point, I’m not even going to make reference to the fact that, while the top two percent already pays a disproportionate share of the total federal income taxes, half of this country doesn’t pay any.

No.  I’m going to focus on a lie that is so blatantly obvious that someone would need to be comatose not to catch it.  What’s the lie, you ask?

Still, throughout his speech, the message was clear: In 2012, Barack Obama and the Democrats are in favor of ‘fairness,’ of having those Americans who can afford to do so pay a bit more in taxes so that the rest of the country can thrive.

How is taking more money from the top 1% going to help the country “thrive?”  It’s a proven fact that the extra money won’t put a scratch, let alone a dent, in the national debt.  And it isn’t like we have a president who seems to care about deficits.  The implied argument being made here is that the middle class will somehow be helped by taxing the rich more.  How?  Well, notably absent from Barry’s plan is a tax cut for the middle class.  And it’s not like the extra money being extracted from the rich is going to be sent to the middle class.  So, how is this plan helping anyone?  That’s right, it’s not.  The Buffett Rule is a political stunt that the president hopes will distract everyone from the fact that his presidency has been less then stellar.

So, are you going to fall for this asshattery?  Of course not.  You’re one of my readers.  But your mom may not be.  So feel free to poke her with a sharp pin to make sure she responds to painful stimuli before giving her a summary of the foregoing.

Closing tax loopholes and lowering tax rates: Finally

Hopefully the next subsidy to die.

The Republicans signaled last week that they were serious about the deficit.  By voting to get rid of ethanol subsidies, which were nothing a gift to corn growers in the heartland, the GOP seems to be stepping up to the plate.  Now, as Paul Ryan promised, they’re moving to reform the tax code, by moving to close tax loopholes that have allowed corporations like GE to pay no taxes.  At the same time, they’re talking about lowering tax rates across the board.  The end result: increasing revenue without raising taxes.  It’s not some genius concept; it’s common sense that was lost long ago with the advent of our increasingly absurd tax code.

The combination of our stupid tax code and subsidies, has created a corporate welfare state that results in market manipulation.  Subsidies of every conceivable kind should be done away with…from oil to solar to agriculture.  No more favors.  If nobody wants to buy a $43,000 Chevy Volt because of its price tag, so be it.

And the tax code?  Burn it.  Give us simple, low rates with no deductions.  All deductions are is a way for the government to play social engineer anyway.  And no, I don’t advocate for a flat tax.  It hurts those who are at the bottom of the pay scale far more than those at the top.  Two or three low, graduated rates would do just fine…but everybody has to pay in.  No more of this “47% of Americans don’t pay any income tax.”

All of this begs the question though: will the Dems go along with it?  They signed onto the ethanol vote because it was strictly a regional issue that few on the left cared about (they don’t care about “fly-over country” after all).  What about ending subsidies for solar, wind, or electric car battery manufacturers though?  I’m guessing we’ll see a much stronger push-back on those.

Of course, none of this makes any real difference if we don’t do something about the entitlements.  Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid continue to absorb every dime of revenue coming into the federal government.  All three of them are essentially ponzi schemes…requiring this generation to pay for the last.  And in the end, ponzi schemes always collapse.

In any event, I’m feeling somewhat optimistic about all of this.  These are the sorts of things we voted for in 2010; and the sorts of things that the GOP failed miserably to accomplish under Bush Jr.  By ending subsidies, we’re automatically decreasing government spending, while at the same time, putting an end to market manipulation.  The government shouldn’t have any involvement in picking winners and losers.  By streamlining the tax code and getting rid of loop holes and unnecessary tax breaks, we will decrease the small businessman’s tax burden, while making GE pay its fair share.  Wow, that almost sounded liberal.  Don’t worry though.  I’m sure we’ll still disagree on what constitutes “fair.”

Shut it all down!

“Elections have consequences.”  Remember that?  It was uttered by none other than our current president, right after he was elected.  What’s he saying now that the election in Wisconsin is having consequences?  Where are all the libs who cried foul on the Senate Republicans using the filibuster so much?  None of them seem to have any problem with the Wisconsin State Senate leaving the state to avoid a vote. 

How about all of those public school teachers who only care about their students?  Oh yeah, they’re shutting down their schools for the first, second, and in some cases, third day.  And some are even bringing their students with them.  Why?  Because they, like most other public employees under the Republican plan, would have to pay half of their pension costs and at least 12 percent of their health care costs, which is still less than the rest of us in the private market.

‘I want to do anything in my power to raise awareness that this can’t happen,’ said one protestor.

I find the arrogance of these people appalling. Sorry, but there isn’t a secret pot of money sitting around just for you.  Your salary comes from your neighbors.  All of it.  And the idea that taxes should be raised to pay down the state debt is absurd.

The state of Wisconsin, as well as just about every state out there, could function just fine on probably a quarter of the employees they have.  Why?  Because government has absolutely no incentive to be efficient, and as a result, it isn’t.  And no, this conversation does not involve police and firefighters, since a legitimate role of any government is protection of the people.  Otherwise,what’s the point?

Personally, I hope the movement to shrink government results in doing something substantial about our public education system.  And by “something” I mean dismantling it.  It costs too much, is completely unnecessary, and in too many instances, fails to actually graduate well-rounded, educated, and moral kids. 

What’s happening in Wisconsin is historic.  Pay attention.  And remember for all of you that think voting doesn’t matter because both parties are the same: sometimes, elections do have consequences.

Liberals still don’t get it

Well, it was a long, and glorious, evening.  In case you don’t follow these things, the Republicans took control of the House by winning over 60 seats.  They also took practical control of the Senate, and continued their assault with big gubernatorial pick-ups in various states.  It was, without question, an unmitigated disaster for Obama, liberal Democrats, and especially, the “moderate” Dems who sold their souls to the far left of Nancy Pelosi.  In fact, I can’t decide what was better last night: seeing the results or hearing the pure, unadulterated anger in the voices of the MSNBC election coverage. 

Of course, last night’s results beg the question: why did it happen?  Was it because of how much we luv the Republicans?  Not really.  Was it because of Obama’s policies?  Almost certainly.  You listen to the far left progressives, however, and you quickly realize that they (still) don’t get it.

“Obama didn’t spend enough.”  “He didn’t push single-payer.”  “He didn’t forcefully propel his progressive agenda.”  “The messaging on all the great stuff he’s accomplished was lost somewhere.”  These are the things I’ve been hearing from the left.  They believe the true left will now become more galvanized without the “moderates.”  I think the Keith Olberman’s of the world will quickly come to realize, however, that what’s left of their party doesn’t agree.

Here’s what we learned last night.  Through all the dissatisfaction with the Republicans and their wars and their spending, this country is still a center-right country.  America is different than every other country in the world because we were a democracy from inception.  In other words, personal freedom, responsibility, and opportunity are our culture.  For good or bad, we don’t like big government.  We don’t even like medium government.  And we showed that last night.

The liberals see a stimulus that saved jobs.  The majority of this country sees billions of dollars being taken from the pockets of producers in the private market, some of whom are now part of the 9.5% unemployed, and given to government workers.  Like it or not, government employees work for us, and when they’re pulling down paychecks and benefits and pensions on the backs of the unemployed or underemployed, heads will roll.  Why?  Because we’re not France, and we wouldn’t even know how to be France.

Liberals see legislation that gives everybody insurance.  The majority of this country sees legislation that isn’t going to reduce the amounts they pay for medical care, but will increase their costs elsewhere, as the government will certainly need to subsidize millions of people who still can’t afford it. 

Liberals see Social Security as a safety net for the retired.  The majority sees taxes taken out of their paycheck at gunpoint, money which they, and the economy, could certainly use now, with empty promises that it will be protected for their retirement.   

This is the divide that separates America from Western Europe (and the rest of the world).  We’re willing to pay taxes for the military, police, and efficient government.  We’re even willing to pay taxes to provide for assistance to those who need it.  We’re not, however, willing to pay taxes for Michelle Obama to travel through Spain in style, or Nancy Pelosi to fly on private aircraft whenever she feels like going somewhere, or a Dept. of Justice that selectively enforces federal law, or people on welfare using their government-issued debit cards for psychic readings (I’m looking at you California).  This is especially true when many of the people paying the taxes are having a hard time putting food on the table.

Simply put, last night was a message to our representatives, both Republican and Democrat, to get their acts together.  If the remaining liberals in office don’t want to heed that call, then they may find themselves in an even smaller minority come 2012; which wouldn’t be a bad thing.

Infrastructure? Again? Who Came Up With That Idea?

[somewhere in White House]

Barry:  Why does everyone hate me?  Don’t they realize I’m working really hard?

Biden (eating animal crackers):  Yeah, it’s been a recovery summer baby!

Barry:  I just don’t know Joe.  The people seem to be forgetting how totally bad-ass I am. 

Biden:  Hey, B.O., watch me bite the head off of this horse.  Boo-Yah!

Barry:  I don’t know…maybe I need a vacation to clear my head. 

Biden (fiddling with jack in the box and muttering to himself): why can’t i get this box to open?

Barry:  Joe?  Hello?

Biden (looks up from the box, startled):  Wait, what?  Roads!  Everyone loves roads!  And high-speed rail!  Yeah, infrastruture baby, infrastructure!

Barry:  But we’ve done that already, and honestly, it didn’t really work.  Won’t the people get angry?

Biden:  Come on baby, no one even remembers the first stimulus.  In fact, we’ve spent so much friggin’ money, no one can even distinguish between the bailout, and the stimulus, and the budget.  Just say that we can put people to work on building roads and stuff.  And be sure to say “stimulus” a lot.  Oh, and don’t wear that bike helmet again.

Barry:  I knew it!  Michelle told me it was the type of helmet that everyone wears in Paris, and that the American people would love it.  -Sigh- 

Biden:  Nope.  You looked like a total LAME-O.

Barry:  Well you don’t need to yell.  So, do you think Congress will get on board with the building roads stuff?

Biden (sharpening his crayons):  Sure.  Just give ‘em the old “republicans drove the economy into the ditch and more roads will help fill in the ditch or somethin’” speech.  That always works.  Also, tell ‘em you’ll speak at their campaigns.  Who could say no to that?

Barry:  Big J, I think you’re right.  The people need to remember that I’m totally bad ass, and that I’m really really smart too.  I mean, I used to organize communities.

Biden (making shadow puppets):  You’re the smartest guy I know B.A., and that’s sayin’ something.  Well, I’m tired.  I think I’ll take a nap. 

Barry:  Thanks Joe.  You’re a big help.

Biden (rummaging through his vice-presidential lunch box):  Crap…who ate my fruit roll-up?!

Paul Ryan is Why I’m a Republican, and Why You Should Be Too.

I’ve been hearing a lot of self-described conservatives say things like “I’m not a Republican…don’t put a label on me…I think for myself” lately.  My response to those statements falls somewhere between “congratulations…here’s your medal for being an individual…now it’s nap time” and “you’re right, they’re not perfect,” depending on how well I know the person who’s saying it.  Look, people can identify themselves however they want in life, but when it comes time to vote in November, there are only two choices: the party of Paul Ryan or the party of Paul Krugman; and there’s a HUGE difference between the two.

Mr. Ryan hails from Wisconsin, is a member of the House of Representatives, and is a Republican.  And contrary to  the mindless rhetoric from the Democrats, he has a plan.  More specifically, he has a plan to get us out of debt and improve the economy.  And he does it by lowering taxes.  His “Roadmap,” as he call it, has been met with great disdain from the left because of its radical ideas; namely, cutting government spending.  Now, I understand that nowadays, actually cutting back on federal spending is the equivalent of riding a unicorn with the president, but there was once a day when the federal government didn’t employ the entire state of California.  The Roadmap cuts spending, decreases taxes for both individuals and businesses (which will create jobs), and simplifies the tax code to some extent.  Is Mr. Ryan your typical modern-day Republican?  Maybe not.  But you will never find a Paul Ryan in the Democrat party.

Paul Krugman.  I’ve written about him before.  While he identifies himself as an economist, he’s actually just a liberal shill in a tweed sport coat.  He believes spending cuts are stupid, or evil, or something.  He believes, like all liberals, that “tax cuts must be paid for.”  Of course, such a position constitutes lunacy when one considers the fact that those “tax cuts” are not expenditures, but simply less theft.  Like many liberals, Krugman believes increased government spending will create jobs by “stimulating” the economy.  Of course, he never identifies how much spending is necessary, since it’s never actually worked.  His convenient answer to continued failure is “we should have spent more.”

In response Krugman’s recent rambling and nonsensical criticism to his “Roadmap,” Ryan stated,

‘At the core of this is a big ideological fight between those who believe in the Founding principles and the sense of limited government—the American idea—and those who believe in the progressivist welfare state.’

‘The Roadmap is designed to maintain a limited government in the 21st century, and it is the antithesis of the progressivist vision which [Krugman] subscribes to. That’s fine. I understand it violates his vision for a progressivist society.’

In these statements, Ryan has admirably described the foundational difference between conservatives and liberals.  Liberals seek control by way of taxation, government spending, and entitlements.  Conservatives believe in self-reliance, small government, and opportunity.

The point of all of this is that it matters what Ryan believes vs. what Krugman believes.  It matters because, regardless of your feelings on “Republicans” vs. “Democrats,” the simple fact remains: Ryan, and those like him, will never be Democrats, and Krugman and his followers will never be Republicans.  For those that want a better shot at more opportunity, fewer taxes, sustained job growth, and smaller government, then vote Republican in November.  The only alternative is a vote for liberals like Krugman.

Washington Post Exposes Intelligence Bureaucracy

He's working for the federal government now.

Well, the Washington Post has done an exemplary job of telling us, with colorful graphs and fancy web-pages, what we already knew: too many people work for the federal government and the intelligence community has become like, well, every other bloated federal monolith.  Here’s what I took away from Day 1(!) of the Post’s extravaganza: far too many people have access to my personals, which, if Michelle “step away from the fries” Obama has her way, will soon include my body mass index.

Now, the ridiculously large number of people with top secret access does concern me.  Why?  Well, it’s not just the dead hooker in my trunk (I kid, I kid).  And it should concern you too.  The federal government becomes larger and more intrusive by the day.  Hell, there’s probably some over-educated kid from Harvard sitting in his posh D.C. area office reading this very important blog right now.  And for what?

Since 9/11, buckets of money have been shoveled to anyone with any connection to the protection of this country.  That’s not a bad thing per se, since the job of government is to protect its people.  But what has all of that money and snooping achieved?  Well, I’m not being carbon-copied on the CIA’s internal memo’s yet, so I can’t speak to all the successes.  I do know, however, that some dude on the no-fly-list was able to get on an airplane and try and blow it up.  I also know that some terrorist sympathizer was able to evade great big flashing lights and alarms and kill some soldiers at Ft. Hood.  In other words, we still can’t “connect the dots.”

It’s not just the intelligence community that’s become a fat man trying to ice skate either; every part of the giant money-suck that is the federal government needs to be gutted.  There are WAY too many “civil servants” in Washington D.C. pulling down six figure salaries which are paid for by the tax-payer.  A recent article in Politico shed some light on the very issue of Washington failing to feel the effects of the bad economy:

The massive expansion of government under President Barack Obama has basically guaranteed a robust job market for policy professionals, regulators and contractors for years to come. The housing market, boosted by the large number of high-income earners in the area, many working in politics and government, is easily outpacing the markets in most of the country. And there are few signs of economic distress in hotels, restaurants or stores in the D.C. metro area.

How many of those “policy professionals, regulators and contractors” are serving a useful purpose?  Are we really safer with an estimated 854,000 people with top-level security clearance!?  The obvious answer to both of these questions is no.  And it’s not just an Obama or Dem problem.  Both parties have fattened themselves up from the tax-payer trough for far too long.

Next week’s Washington Post piece: an inside look at the Department of Education.  Be sure not to eat before you read that one.

Obama’s Tour de B.S. Rides On

Am I beating a dead horse?  Well, not entirely…because it’s not dead yet.  As long as Obama keeps spewing rhetoric that falls somewhere between baseless nonsense and outright lies, I will continue to address it.  On Saturday, during his weekly radio/internet address to the nation, B.O. offered the following,

‘Too often, the Republican leadership in the United States Senate chooses to filibuster our recovery and obstruct our progress. And that has very real consequences.’

So, what you’re saying is that not extending unemployment benefits beyond two years is obstructing progress?  What the hell constitutes progress then?  Three years of unemployment benefits?  Is he actually advocating that continued unemployment  benefits will create jobs?  Haven’t we been trying this for some time now?  Newsflash Barry: it’s not working!  Continuing to pay people to not work, with money we don’t have, coupled with a complete refusal to implement any legislation that may actually spur job growth is not progress.  It’s continuing to pour gasoline into a gas tank with a big-ass hole in it and waiting for the car to run; and when it doesn’t, advocate for the pouring of more…on credit.

Obama has made job creation his top domestic priority and has traveled repeatedly to the U.S. heartland to tout policies that lift hiring, including to Holland, Michigan, on Thursday for the groundbreaking of an electric car battery factory that has received federal dollars.

While not a direct quote from Obama, this is certainly a position he has offered before.  Assertions like this one continue to make me wonder if I’ve completely lost my mind.  How exactly has Barry made “job creation his top priority?”  Is there any basis for this contention?  What policies have been implemented that “lift hiring?”  Is it those unemployment benefits you keep talking about?

Oh, and that electric car battery factor in Michigan that is producing all of those jobs?  It’s mostly federal subsidies.  And yes, I can here it now: “but it’s job creation!  those are jobs that wouldn’t be there without the factory (and government money)!”  Well, that’s true.  But what happens when the factory stops receiving government subsidies?  If at that point the factory isn’t making the company money, it will close its doors.  See, this is the problem with “government stimulus” or “government subsidies.”  They’re temporary by their very nature.  Why?  Because the government doesn’t make any money, but always finds new stuff to spend money on.  We need sustained private sector job growth; not a one-time steroid injection.

U.S. growth has resumed after the worst recession in decades, thanks in part to a $862 billion stimulus plan Obama signed last year.

But this recovery has been slow to produce new jobs, and his Democrats risk punishment by voters in congressional elections on November 2 unless he can start to curb unemployment now running at 9.5 percent.

It’s true that slow growth has resumed.  It’s also true that the private sector is slowly adding new jobs  — not enough to equate to net job growth since not enough jobs are being created to match population growth — but at least we’re not losing them, right?  Has it resumed because of the stimulus though?  The fact is, no one knows.  What we do know is that, without the stimulus, the economy would have bottomed out simply because all the companies that couldn’t stay in business would have eventually gone out of business, and everyone else would have, at some point, slashed enough overhead to survive.  We also know that the stimulus didn’t keep unemployment maxed out at 8% like the obama administration claimed it would.  Does that make it a failure?  I would argue yes (duh), especially when no one can provide evidence that its net effect has been to create jobs.

Frustratingly for the White House, its proposals to extend unemployment insurance, cut capital gains taxes on investments and set up a fund to boost lending to small businesses have been repeatedly blocked on Capitol Hill.

This is the liberal talking point that will continue to be argued for the next three months or so.  It’s a complete sham, as we discussed here on Friday.  Simply put: if Obama actually wanted to pass a tax cut, he could.  So could the Dems.  Instead, they attach tax cuts to some other monstrosity of a bill that would completely defeat the purpose of the tax cuts contained therein.  Thus, it is filibustered.  Seems kind of like a self-fulfilling prophesy, huh?

‘They say we shouldn’t provide unemployment insurance because it costs money,’ chided Obama.

‘So after years of championing policies that turned a record surplus into a massive deficit, including a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, they’ve finally decided to make their stand on the backs of the unemployed,’ he said.

The issue of Clinton’s “surplus” was also tackled here recently.  The fact is, Bush did not inherit a surplus; he inherited a projected surplus based on a forecast of perpetual roses and sunshine, which is a very different thing.  I actually enjoy Obama’s continued reliance on Clinton’s fiscal responsibility, however, because it shows he has no answers of his own.  Barry possesses no counter-arguments to the assertions that all of his domestic policies have been total disasters.  Simply put, the president is lost (which is a scary thing).  That’s precisely why he brought in Clinton and previous supporter Warren Buffet for a closed-door White House session on the economy this past week.

Yep, Barry inherited a terrible economy.  But that doesn’t excuse his complete failure to do anything about it, and then lie about why he hasn’t done anything about it.  Of course, Obama’s privately hoping that the Republicans regain control of at least the House, because it will provide him further excuses for failing to do anything constructive.  Who knows, maybe it will even allow him to move to the center and get stuff done, just like 1994 did for Clinton.  After all, that mid-term election helped create all of those “surpluses” we hear so much about.

Why Don’t We Just Give Everybody Money Then?

Well, it seems, at least in a round about way, that our president has finally realized that the best way to improve the economy is to put more money into the hands of the people that actually spend it.

Obama said lawmakers’ obligation to extend benefits is both moral and practical, citing some economists who believe extending unemployment is one of the most cost-effective ways to jump-start the economy because it puts money in the pockets of people who are likely to spend it quickly.

B.O. is spot on here.  The best way to jump start the economy is to put money into the hands of consumers.  The only problem with the extended unemployment benefits he’s seeking:

The $34 billion needed to extend benefits would be borrowed, adding to the nation’s mounting debt.

Now, how could we put more money into the hands of more people without having to ask China for it?  That’s right: CUT TAXES ON EVERYTHING FOR EVERYBODY!  It isn’t rocket science.  In fact, it’s so simple, even our president gets it.

Obama also called on lawmakers to send him a package of tax breaks and credit extensions for small businesses.

This is a great idea (seriously).  But why not extend the package to all businesses?  Why limit it to small business?  How about we also cut other taxes, like income tax?  Of course, in addition to adding to the aforementioned tax breaks, Obama should request that Congress send him a bill consisting only of tax breaks, as opposed to attaching them to some God-awful budget or some other liberal piece of legislation that cancels out the benefit of the tax breaks.  If our president is truly serious about tax breaks, he should be willing to sign a bill that is both pro-business and doesn’t add to the debt.

Unemployment benefits are a symptom of a larger problem though.  No one (Dems or Repubs) has any interest in actually solving problems.  Example: healthcare.  Instead of tweaking the system that delivers the best healthcare in the world, which is all that was needed, we drop an ACME anvil on it.  Why?  Because no one gives a damn about actually fixing anything.  Same with the financial overhaul.

Since Barry has admitted that the best way to stimulate the economy is to put more money in people’s pockets, all he has to do now is pass a bill that allows people to keep more of their own money.  I, for one, am not holding my breath.

Anti-Incumbent or Anti-Democrat Incumbent?

A recent NPR poll has added additional support to the theory that the mid-term elections, at least in the House, could result in a significant shift in power.  First, the poll:

To gauge what voters are thinking in House districts where surveys show the races will likely be tight in November and a switch in party control is possible, Democratic firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies conducted a poll of 1,200 “likely” voters in 60 battleground districts that elected Democrats in 2008 (one of the seats is vacant) and 10 districts now represented by Republicans.

So, the focus was on some of the so-called battleground districts.  The results were telling, especially considering it was a NPR poll.  While some have argued that the mood out there is “anti-incumbent,” others have argued it’s specifically “anti-democrat incumbent.”  This poll supports the latter assertion.  Interestingly, 44% of those polled favored their incumbent, against 37%.  That 44% figure is strongly buttressed by Republicans though, since a majority of likely voters in those districts with Republican incumbents supported re-election, while a majority of likely voters in districts with Democratic incumbents desired new blood.

While this is only one poll of many, it further supports the conventional wisdom that 2010 may be a repeat of 1994.  This should be an interesting summer.