Barack Obama is under increased pressure lately from his fellow Democrats. The issue, of course, is Wisconsin. While Obama has come out in support of the collectivist union mentality -- calling the Governor's bill "an assault on the unions" -- many leftists are saying that this is no longer good enough. He needs to do more. The Community Organizer needs to do what community organizers do best! Head to Wisconsin and promote a little mob rule! Stand with the government workers against the taxpayers! In fact back in 2007, this is exactly what Obama said he would do ... that he'd be walking the picket lines in solidarity with workers if unions were ever threatened. So now that time has come. The precious unions are being "threatened." They're being threatened with the idea that they should pay part of their own retirement and health care. They're being beaten over the head with the idea that they should not be able to use collective bargaining tactics to loot the public treasury by negotiating with the very politicians they hired through their campaign donations and election volunteering! So now, will Obama have the Bidens to really take a stand? Come on, Barack ole buddy! Head to Madison and march with your union brothers and sisters! March for the idea that the most important workers in America work for government! March for the idea that private businesses and private-sector workers exist for no purpose other than to support the government sector and government workers!
Thus far what we've been getting from the Obama cadre is pretty much rhetoric - though it has been amping up a bit.
In the meantime, his administration is upping its rhetoric on the issue as well. Obama's Labor Secretary Hilda Solis says, "The fight is on." She says, "We work together. We help those embattled states right now where public employees are under assault." Now wait a minute ... "the fight is on?" Isn't that rhetoric just a little bit violent for the peaceful left in this country? Maybe Hilda has been talking to Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Michael Capuano. Just last week at a Boston "solidarity" rally the peaceful Mr. Capuano said "I'm proud to be here with people who understand that it's more than just sending an email to get you going. Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary." Hmmm .... The Marxist in the White House is telling the unions that they're "under assault, the Secretary of Labor saying "the fight is on," and a Massachusetts Democrat talking about getting "a little bloody when necessary" ... more proof of all of that dangerous Tea Party rhetoric that is endangering our politicians out there, right? Only these were Democrats. Dang ... I'm so confused. Here I thought that the violent rhetoric was supposed to come from the right .. and then Solis and Capuano come along and futz things up like this. I mean ...couldn't those words perhaps encourage some violence-prone union types to get a bit physical there in Wisconsin? Well ... if that does happen, you can count on the ObamaMedia to ignore the violent rhetoric from the left and try to blame it either on Sarah Palin, talk radio or the Tea Parties.
Some things just never change.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
Senator Bill Nelson is a Schmuck!
Democrat (of course) Senator Bill Nelson from Florida is slamming Governor Rick Scott for turning down a few billion dollars that we don't have for a rapid rail project between Tampa and Orlando that we don't need. Consider, if you will, Senator Nelson's reasoning. He says that turning down the money will cost thousands of jobs in Florida.
So ... there you have it, straight from the Democrat's mouth. You don't build the high-speed rail project because it is actually needed, or because it will actually be financially viable. You build it so that thousands of Floridians will be employed in the project.
Gator squeeze. (That's Gator shit--for those of you who live in Miami)
Using Nelson's logic - that you spend the money to create jobs - wouldn't it make more sense just to taken the billions and dole it out to unemployed Floridians? That way you could put ALL of the money into the hands of the poor, poor pitiful jobless Floridians without wasting any of it on such things as purchasing right-of-way, concrete cross-ties, steel rails, electric locomotives, passenger cars and other expensive stuff. By just handing the billions to unemployed Floridians you would not be creating future liabilities for Florida taxpayers.
So ... there you have it, straight from the Democrat's mouth. You don't build the high-speed rail project because it is actually needed, or because it will actually be financially viable. You build it so that thousands of Floridians will be employed in the project.
Gator squeeze. (That's Gator shit--for those of you who live in Miami)
Using Nelson's logic - that you spend the money to create jobs - wouldn't it make more sense just to taken the billions and dole it out to unemployed Floridians? That way you could put ALL of the money into the hands of the poor, poor pitiful jobless Floridians without wasting any of it on such things as purchasing right-of-way, concrete cross-ties, steel rails, electric locomotives, passenger cars and other expensive stuff. By just handing the billions to unemployed Floridians you would not be creating future liabilities for Florida taxpayers.
Are we this stupid on Human Rights?
The United Nations is such a joke. Always has been ... still is. We are talking about an organization that exists for two principal purposes, weakening America and redistribution of wealth ... particularly America's wealth.
For 60 years we had an essentially useless body called the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. It eventually became so corrupt and lacking in credibility that it was dissolved in 2006. Do you remember when Sudan engaged in a program of ethnic cleansing in its Darfur region? That happened right after Sudan was placed on the Human Rights Council. That should give you an idea of why nobody took this commission seriously. One of the final anchors that sunk the U.N. Commission on Human Rights was nominating ... Libya! ... as the commission's president. So this defunct commission decided to regroup and "tighten" its criteria for membership to create the current Human Rights Council. I'm not entirely sure what criteria they used to elect members, but we have countries like Libya, Cuba, China and others that don't have the greatest track records when it comes to human rights sitting on this council to decide on human rights violations.
But then who are we kidding? This isn't really about human rights, is it? Now up until 2009, the United States refused to be a part of any of this Human Rights Council (we were kicked off of the last commission). But the great Community Organizer thought it would be a wise idea to reserve the Bush boycott and join the new Human Rights Council in 2009, saying the U.S. could most effectively push it to improve by being a member. Yeah ... right. So now we have a chance to test that theory.
So what is the Human Rights Council doing about the fact that one of its member nations, at the direction of a crazy dictator, is killing its citizens in cold blood? They've sent word to Quadaffi that "Killing your people is bad. Stop it. Stern letter to follow." Yup ... the Human Rights Council is going to call a special session to draft a letter. Wow, sounds pretty ruthless, eh? And fear not, my friends! Libya will get to keep its seat on the United Nations Human Right Council as there hasn't been one call for it to be kicked off the council.
Keep in mind that this is the same Human Rights Commission that Barack Obama submitted a report to about Arizona and its efforts to secure the border and enforce federal immigration policy on the state level.
For 60 years we had an essentially useless body called the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. It eventually became so corrupt and lacking in credibility that it was dissolved in 2006. Do you remember when Sudan engaged in a program of ethnic cleansing in its Darfur region? That happened right after Sudan was placed on the Human Rights Council. That should give you an idea of why nobody took this commission seriously. One of the final anchors that sunk the U.N. Commission on Human Rights was nominating ... Libya! ... as the commission's president. So this defunct commission decided to regroup and "tighten" its criteria for membership to create the current Human Rights Council. I'm not entirely sure what criteria they used to elect members, but we have countries like Libya, Cuba, China and others that don't have the greatest track records when it comes to human rights sitting on this council to decide on human rights violations.
But then who are we kidding? This isn't really about human rights, is it? Now up until 2009, the United States refused to be a part of any of this Human Rights Council (we were kicked off of the last commission). But the great Community Organizer thought it would be a wise idea to reserve the Bush boycott and join the new Human Rights Council in 2009, saying the U.S. could most effectively push it to improve by being a member. Yeah ... right. So now we have a chance to test that theory.
So what is the Human Rights Council doing about the fact that one of its member nations, at the direction of a crazy dictator, is killing its citizens in cold blood? They've sent word to Quadaffi that "Killing your people is bad. Stop it. Stern letter to follow." Yup ... the Human Rights Council is going to call a special session to draft a letter. Wow, sounds pretty ruthless, eh? And fear not, my friends! Libya will get to keep its seat on the United Nations Human Right Council as there hasn't been one call for it to be kicked off the council.
Keep in mind that this is the same Human Rights Commission that Barack Obama submitted a report to about Arizona and its efforts to secure the border and enforce federal immigration policy on the state level.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Columbia and a Hero
So Anthony Maschek is a student at Columbia University - where he's studying economics.
But he's also a veteran of the Iraq War.
He was recently awarded a Purple Heart, after being shot 11 times in Iraq. He spent two years at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and still has to get around in a wheelchair.
He sounds like a pretty amazing guy - someone you'd want to buy a beer or two, given the chance.
Unless, of course, you might be a student at Columbia.
See, Maschek was speaking during a meeting last week at the school, on the topic of getting the ROTC program back on campus. While trying to explain the need for a strong military, he was shouted at, laughed at and called a racist.
It was like he was facing a poltergeist made up of Huffington Post bloggers.
Yeah, some Columbia students suck.
But, look - the fact that they disrespected the soldier only underlines how silly they are. And more important, their behavior serves to remind us that this crap still goes on.
Fact is, we live in a culture where reality TV trumps reality, patriotism seems quaint, and no-talent teeny boppers gain more respect and adulation than our boys at war. We got kids who think Justin Bieber is hipper than soldiers.
That bugs me.
Anyway, I hope their stupidity, heard by many, prevents them from ever getting a job or having sex with people who bathe.
That'll only leave them with one option - working at Columbia.
But he's also a veteran of the Iraq War.
He was recently awarded a Purple Heart, after being shot 11 times in Iraq. He spent two years at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and still has to get around in a wheelchair.
He sounds like a pretty amazing guy - someone you'd want to buy a beer or two, given the chance.
Unless, of course, you might be a student at Columbia.
See, Maschek was speaking during a meeting last week at the school, on the topic of getting the ROTC program back on campus. While trying to explain the need for a strong military, he was shouted at, laughed at and called a racist.
It was like he was facing a poltergeist made up of Huffington Post bloggers.
Yeah, some Columbia students suck.
But, look - the fact that they disrespected the soldier only underlines how silly they are. And more important, their behavior serves to remind us that this crap still goes on.
Fact is, we live in a culture where reality TV trumps reality, patriotism seems quaint, and no-talent teeny boppers gain more respect and adulation than our boys at war. We got kids who think Justin Bieber is hipper than soldiers.
That bugs me.
Anyway, I hope their stupidity, heard by many, prevents them from ever getting a job or having sex with people who bathe.
That'll only leave them with one option - working at Columbia.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
A little enlightenment
While unions continue to dominate the news, I figured I would give you a few little facts I found from the Heritage Foundation. Take these facts, absorb them and continue to ask yourself .... are unions making a positive impact on our economy? I'll bet you can already answer that question. But here are some specifics to fill in the blanks.
Unions function as labor cartels. A labor cartel restricts the number of workers in a company or industry to drive up the remaining workers' wages, just as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) attempts to cut the supply of oil to raise its price. Companies pass on those higher wages to consumers through higher prices, and often they also earn lower profits. Economic research finds that unions benefit their members but hurt consumers generally, and especially workers who are denied job opportunities.
Economists consistently find that unions decrease the number of jobs available in the economy. The vast majority of manufacturing jobs lost over the past three decades have been among union members--non-union manufacturing employment has risen. Research also shows that widespread unionization delays recovery from economic downturns.
Some unions win higher wages for their members, though many do not. But with these higher wages, unions bring less investment, fewer jobs, higher prices, and smaller 401(k) plans for everyone else. On balance, labor cartels harm the economy, and enacting policies designed to force workers into unions will only prolong the recession.
Studies typically find that unionized companies earn profits between 10 percent and 15 percent lower than those of comparable non-union firms. Unlike the findings with respect to wage effects, the research shows unambiguously that unions directly cause lower profits. Profits drop at companies whose unions win certification elections but remain at normal levels for non-union firms. One recent study found that shareholder returns fall by 10 percent over two years at companies where unions win certification.
In essence, unions "tax" investments that corporations make, redistributing part of the return from these investments to their members. This makes undertaking a new investment less worthwhile. Companies respond to the union tax in the same way they respond to government taxes on investment--by investing less. By cutting profits, unions also reduce the money that firms have available for new investments, so they also indirectly reduce investment.
Research shows that unions directly cause firms to reduce their investments. In fact, investment drops sharply after unions organize a company. One study found that unionizing reduces capital investment by 30 percent--the same effect as a 33 percentage point increase in the corporate tax rate.
Economists have found that unions delay economic recoveries. States with more union members took considerably longer than those with fewer union members to recover from the 1982 and 1991 recessions.
Now imagine if our government - state and federal - were forced to run like a business, without its unique ability to levy and collect taxes ...... me thinks our country would have gone Tango Uniform (T-U-or Tits Up for you non-military folks) ages ago.
Unions function as labor cartels. A labor cartel restricts the number of workers in a company or industry to drive up the remaining workers' wages, just as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) attempts to cut the supply of oil to raise its price. Companies pass on those higher wages to consumers through higher prices, and often they also earn lower profits. Economic research finds that unions benefit their members but hurt consumers generally, and especially workers who are denied job opportunities.
Economists consistently find that unions decrease the number of jobs available in the economy. The vast majority of manufacturing jobs lost over the past three decades have been among union members--non-union manufacturing employment has risen. Research also shows that widespread unionization delays recovery from economic downturns.
Some unions win higher wages for their members, though many do not. But with these higher wages, unions bring less investment, fewer jobs, higher prices, and smaller 401(k) plans for everyone else. On balance, labor cartels harm the economy, and enacting policies designed to force workers into unions will only prolong the recession.
Studies typically find that unionized companies earn profits between 10 percent and 15 percent lower than those of comparable non-union firms. Unlike the findings with respect to wage effects, the research shows unambiguously that unions directly cause lower profits. Profits drop at companies whose unions win certification elections but remain at normal levels for non-union firms. One recent study found that shareholder returns fall by 10 percent over two years at companies where unions win certification.
In essence, unions "tax" investments that corporations make, redistributing part of the return from these investments to their members. This makes undertaking a new investment less worthwhile. Companies respond to the union tax in the same way they respond to government taxes on investment--by investing less. By cutting profits, unions also reduce the money that firms have available for new investments, so they also indirectly reduce investment.
Research shows that unions directly cause firms to reduce their investments. In fact, investment drops sharply after unions organize a company. One study found that unionizing reduces capital investment by 30 percent--the same effect as a 33 percentage point increase in the corporate tax rate.
Economists have found that unions delay economic recoveries. States with more union members took considerably longer than those with fewer union members to recover from the 1982 and 1991 recessions.
Now imagine if our government - state and federal - were forced to run like a business, without its unique ability to levy and collect taxes ...... me thinks our country would have gone Tango Uniform (T-U-or Tits Up for you non-military folks) ages ago.
Friday, February 18, 2011
They Ran Away--Democrats STOP the democratic process.
You did hear what the Democrats in the state legislature did yesterday, didn't you? They bailed. They didn't phone in sick, like the teachers unions did. They just left town. In the Wisconsin Senate at least 20 out of 33 senators have to be present in order to do any business and vote on any bills. The Republicans have the majority of seats in the Wisconsin Senate, but that majority is only 19 seats. This means they need to have at least one Democrat Senator in chambers before they can do business. So what if the Democrats do? They didn't show up! They left town! In fact, they left the state! They went to the Best Western Clock Tower Resort in Rockford, Illinois. They left the state because the governor has the authority to call out to the police and force lawmakers into session in order to reach a quorum. So how's that for the legislative process in Wisconsin? Don't you love it when Democrats lose an election and control of the legislature? One Democrat senator told the media that the Democrats were going simply to prevent the Republicans from engaging in any business. Another Democrat senator said that they were staying away in order to give the union demonstrators more time to change the minds of Republican legislators. In other words, the Democrats were abandoning their legislative function so that the mob could wield influence in their place. Now, since the Democrats are completely owned by labor unions, this should not surprise you, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't disgust you.
Make no mistake, my friends, this is a war. This is a war between the taxpayers of this country and the government sector unions that have been plundering the taxpayers for years. From California to New York we have state governments who were in dire financial straits principally because of the benefits that had been negotiated through collective bargaining by public sector unions. In a union negotiation with a private business owner, the business owner has some skin in the game. The business owner knows that if he gives too much to the union, it may jeopardize his very business. When a government employee union negotiates with the city, county or a state government, the government officials who are engaged in the negotiation have NO skin in the game. They know that whatever benefits they negotiate with the union they will just be able to pass off on the poor suffering taxpayers. They also know that negotiations involving grandiose fringe benefits for government union workers will seldom reach the awareness of the taxpayer, but will always earn the gratitude of the union member. This means votes. This means union contributions. This means reelection. This means the continuation of the politician's life of power, prestige and perks.
You might have detected that I don't like unions. That's because I don't like mobs. I'm an individualist. I believe in the sanctity of the individual. Mob action is almost always irrational and self-defeating. Having said that, I can understand and can verbalize a positive role to be played by unions in our country. Let's say, for instance, that a worker refuses to handle a piece of machinery because he believes it to be inherently dangerous. His supervisor becomes so irate with the workers' obstinance that he fires them. A new worker is hired and subsequently is gravely injured by the malfunctioning piece of equipment. In a union environment, there would have been protection for the whistle blowing worker. Those same protections can be afforded through law without the need for mob action however. I would not support any law that outlaws private sector unions. Nor would I support any law that requires a worker to be a member of a private sector union. But it is well past time that we outlaw government sector unions. These union workers in Wisconsin seem to be fond of comparing Gov. Scott Walker with Adolf Hitler. That's rather ironic when you consider the fact that the man who did actually fight Adolf Hitler, FDR, was a steadfast opponent of government sector unions. I guess that little nuance is lost on the Madison mob.
So, today in America far more taxpaying citizens have had their eyes opened to the power and the threat of government employee unions. They see the mobs descending on Madison, Wisconsin, and they asked themselves if this is what they really want to pay for with their taxes. Unions are massively overplaying their hand in Wisconsin. It's a beautiful thing to see.
Make no mistake, my friends, this is a war. This is a war between the taxpayers of this country and the government sector unions that have been plundering the taxpayers for years. From California to New York we have state governments who were in dire financial straits principally because of the benefits that had been negotiated through collective bargaining by public sector unions. In a union negotiation with a private business owner, the business owner has some skin in the game. The business owner knows that if he gives too much to the union, it may jeopardize his very business. When a government employee union negotiates with the city, county or a state government, the government officials who are engaged in the negotiation have NO skin in the game. They know that whatever benefits they negotiate with the union they will just be able to pass off on the poor suffering taxpayers. They also know that negotiations involving grandiose fringe benefits for government union workers will seldom reach the awareness of the taxpayer, but will always earn the gratitude of the union member. This means votes. This means union contributions. This means reelection. This means the continuation of the politician's life of power, prestige and perks.
You might have detected that I don't like unions. That's because I don't like mobs. I'm an individualist. I believe in the sanctity of the individual. Mob action is almost always irrational and self-defeating. Having said that, I can understand and can verbalize a positive role to be played by unions in our country. Let's say, for instance, that a worker refuses to handle a piece of machinery because he believes it to be inherently dangerous. His supervisor becomes so irate with the workers' obstinance that he fires them. A new worker is hired and subsequently is gravely injured by the malfunctioning piece of equipment. In a union environment, there would have been protection for the whistle blowing worker. Those same protections can be afforded through law without the need for mob action however. I would not support any law that outlaws private sector unions. Nor would I support any law that requires a worker to be a member of a private sector union. But it is well past time that we outlaw government sector unions. These union workers in Wisconsin seem to be fond of comparing Gov. Scott Walker with Adolf Hitler. That's rather ironic when you consider the fact that the man who did actually fight Adolf Hitler, FDR, was a steadfast opponent of government sector unions. I guess that little nuance is lost on the Madison mob.
So, today in America far more taxpaying citizens have had their eyes opened to the power and the threat of government employee unions. They see the mobs descending on Madison, Wisconsin, and they asked themselves if this is what they really want to pay for with their taxes. Unions are massively overplaying their hand in Wisconsin. It's a beautiful thing to see.
Public Sector Unions UNMASKED
Yesterday, I think, was a good day for America. It was a day when America saw the true face of government sector unions. Yesterday, Wisconsin became Greece, and Madison became Athens. Government union workers gathered by the thousands in Wisconsin's capital to protest Gov. Scott Walker's plans to rein in the constant abuse of the Wisconsin taxpayers by government employee unions. America - or at least that part of America that is paying attention - now understands that government employee unions have declared an all-out war on the taxpayers.
Unions are mobs, and it was a mob you saw descending on the Wisconsin Capitol yesterday. Mobs don't think. Mobs react. A thinking individual would not hold aloft a sign comparing the governor of Wisconsin to Adolf Hitler. An unthinking member of the mob would, as you could see yesterday by the union signs depicting Walker as Hitler. Mobs are easy to manipulate. That is the role of the union leaders. The leaders of the Wisconsin government sector unions are manipulating the mob for the purpose of preserving their own power and the fat incomes that come with being a labor leader. These union leaders have known for years that this day of reckoning over the state budget would come. They've also known that they would have to find a way to take this reckoning and turn it into a confrontation for their own benefit.
Just what is it that Scott Walker and the Republicans in the state legislature want of these government sector unions? Well, they want them to put 5.8% of their wages toward their own retirement. Imagine that! Contributing to your own retirement! Oh, the humanity! They also want government employees to cover 12.6% of their health care premiums. This, of course, is an outrageous concept for Democrats. People just should not be responsible for their own health care. That's the employer's job ... or the government. This, to these pampered and overpaid union members, seems like the end of the world. The fact is that even with those payments into their own retirement plan and into their health care premiums they would still be paying $100 a month less than the average private sector employee pays in Wisconsin. The unions acknowledge that there's a budget problem, but they have a better way of dealing with it. Raise taxes! It's as simple as that. Just raise taxes on the rich and on the businesses. Just do what you have to do to keep the money flowing into the state so that they can continue to be paid more than their private-sector colleagues would be paid for the same work; and so that they don't have to contribute anything to their own retirement or to their own health care. That is the union way.
Why do I think yesterday was a good day for America? Once again, because Americans saw what these unions are really all about. Even though they recognize and accept the financial disaster facing their state government and other state governments around the country, the union workers see no need for them to be a part of the solution. Their message to the politicians is "Hey! You know how to raise taxes. Get out there and do it!"
Yesterday was a good day for America because the people of this country, already beginning to harbor strong suspicions about the negative role that government employee unions are playing in our economy, finally had those suspicions born out. Teachers unions, the most powerful of all -- and the most feared by Democrats -- called in sick. It was a lie. They weren't sick. They wanted to be paid to demonstrate instead of teach! Now they're union leaders will tell you that the state actually called a work holiday. Not true. The illegal strike came first, in the form of a sickout. Well over 1000 teachers called in the night before the big demonstration and said they would not be at work the next day because they were ill. Did they go to the doctor ? You know they didn't. They painted their signs, grabbed some students and headed for Madison. They lied, and they engaged in an illegal work stoppage. The people of Wisconsin saw it, and the people of America saw it. And today the people of this country have a clearer understanding of just how lawless and how dangerous government sector unions can be.
The people of Wisconsin voiced their concerns at the polls last November. They elected a Republican legislature and they put a Republican governor in office. They were tired of the spending, tired of the deficits, and tired of the debt that their children were going to have to pay off. They were also tired of government sector unions riding roughshod, not only over the legislative powers, but also over the voters. They voted for a change. But, as an editorial in the Madison newspaper put it, the unions are determined that they will have the last word, and they will have the loudest word. Mob rule is now in effect.
Do you get it now? Do you see what's coming? Government union workers are prepared to go to war against the taxpayers to protect their jobs and benefits. They make more than their private-sector counterparts? So what? They don't have to contribute to their own retirement plans or health care? So what? They enjoy retirement benefits that private-sector workers can only fantasize about? So what? Just get those rich people out there to pay more in taxes and everything is going to be fine. We're union, people, and we can shut this government down if we want to. Be careful who you pick a fight with. The rich will surrender to higher taxes. We won't surrender to fiscal responsibility.
Unions are mobs, and it was a mob you saw descending on the Wisconsin Capitol yesterday. Mobs don't think. Mobs react. A thinking individual would not hold aloft a sign comparing the governor of Wisconsin to Adolf Hitler. An unthinking member of the mob would, as you could see yesterday by the union signs depicting Walker as Hitler. Mobs are easy to manipulate. That is the role of the union leaders. The leaders of the Wisconsin government sector unions are manipulating the mob for the purpose of preserving their own power and the fat incomes that come with being a labor leader. These union leaders have known for years that this day of reckoning over the state budget would come. They've also known that they would have to find a way to take this reckoning and turn it into a confrontation for their own benefit.
Just what is it that Scott Walker and the Republicans in the state legislature want of these government sector unions? Well, they want them to put 5.8% of their wages toward their own retirement. Imagine that! Contributing to your own retirement! Oh, the humanity! They also want government employees to cover 12.6% of their health care premiums. This, of course, is an outrageous concept for Democrats. People just should not be responsible for their own health care. That's the employer's job ... or the government. This, to these pampered and overpaid union members, seems like the end of the world. The fact is that even with those payments into their own retirement plan and into their health care premiums they would still be paying $100 a month less than the average private sector employee pays in Wisconsin. The unions acknowledge that there's a budget problem, but they have a better way of dealing with it. Raise taxes! It's as simple as that. Just raise taxes on the rich and on the businesses. Just do what you have to do to keep the money flowing into the state so that they can continue to be paid more than their private-sector colleagues would be paid for the same work; and so that they don't have to contribute anything to their own retirement or to their own health care. That is the union way.
Why do I think yesterday was a good day for America? Once again, because Americans saw what these unions are really all about. Even though they recognize and accept the financial disaster facing their state government and other state governments around the country, the union workers see no need for them to be a part of the solution. Their message to the politicians is "Hey! You know how to raise taxes. Get out there and do it!"
Yesterday was a good day for America because the people of this country, already beginning to harbor strong suspicions about the negative role that government employee unions are playing in our economy, finally had those suspicions born out. Teachers unions, the most powerful of all -- and the most feared by Democrats -- called in sick. It was a lie. They weren't sick. They wanted to be paid to demonstrate instead of teach! Now they're union leaders will tell you that the state actually called a work holiday. Not true. The illegal strike came first, in the form of a sickout. Well over 1000 teachers called in the night before the big demonstration and said they would not be at work the next day because they were ill. Did they go to the doctor ? You know they didn't. They painted their signs, grabbed some students and headed for Madison. They lied, and they engaged in an illegal work stoppage. The people of Wisconsin saw it, and the people of America saw it. And today the people of this country have a clearer understanding of just how lawless and how dangerous government sector unions can be.
The people of Wisconsin voiced their concerns at the polls last November. They elected a Republican legislature and they put a Republican governor in office. They were tired of the spending, tired of the deficits, and tired of the debt that their children were going to have to pay off. They were also tired of government sector unions riding roughshod, not only over the legislative powers, but also over the voters. They voted for a change. But, as an editorial in the Madison newspaper put it, the unions are determined that they will have the last word, and they will have the loudest word. Mob rule is now in effect.
Do you get it now? Do you see what's coming? Government union workers are prepared to go to war against the taxpayers to protect their jobs and benefits. They make more than their private-sector counterparts? So what? They don't have to contribute to their own retirement plans or health care? So what? They enjoy retirement benefits that private-sector workers can only fantasize about? So what? Just get those rich people out there to pay more in taxes and everything is going to be fine. We're union, people, and we can shut this government down if we want to. Be careful who you pick a fight with. The rich will surrender to higher taxes. We won't surrender to fiscal responsibility.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Take the test--Then--bend over and assume the position...
Name one, just one, government program in history that actually cost we were told it would cost upon its inception.
Come on, I'm waiting! I don't have all day here. Oh! You give up? Yeah ... so did I. I've been asking that question for years, and no one can give me an adequate response.
Next question:
Tell me why do you think ObamaCare will be any different?
Here's the latest report that should scare the socks off of you ... from CNSNews:
The Department of Health and Human Services will become the nation's first-ever $1-trillion-per-year Cabinet department in 2014, which is also the first year President Barack Obama's health-care law is scheduled to be fully implemented by that department, according to the budget projections President Obama released yesterday.
In fact, HHS already is costing American taxpayers more per year in inflation-adjusted dollars than the entire federal government cost back in 1965, the year President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed Medicare into law.
One trillion dollars per year. Unbelievable. To put things in perspective, supposedly Obama's grand budget plan would cut projected deficits by $1.1 trillion ... over the next 10 years. That's his big plan - to cut $1 trillion from our deficit over ten years. It won't happen ... not with his budget, and he knows it. He's also very upset that the media is exposing his gimmicks. But back to the point ... on the one hand he talks about a vaporous $1 trillion reduction in the deficit, and on the other hand he's building the country's first $1 trillion agency. Just where to you think all this is going? A weakened America, that's where.
Come on, I'm waiting! I don't have all day here. Oh! You give up? Yeah ... so did I. I've been asking that question for years, and no one can give me an adequate response.
Next question:
Tell me why do you think ObamaCare will be any different?
Here's the latest report that should scare the socks off of you ... from CNSNews:
The Department of Health and Human Services will become the nation's first-ever $1-trillion-per-year Cabinet department in 2014, which is also the first year President Barack Obama's health-care law is scheduled to be fully implemented by that department, according to the budget projections President Obama released yesterday.
In fact, HHS already is costing American taxpayers more per year in inflation-adjusted dollars than the entire federal government cost back in 1965, the year President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed Medicare into law.
One trillion dollars per year. Unbelievable. To put things in perspective, supposedly Obama's grand budget plan would cut projected deficits by $1.1 trillion ... over the next 10 years. That's his big plan - to cut $1 trillion from our deficit over ten years. It won't happen ... not with his budget, and he knows it. He's also very upset that the media is exposing his gimmicks. But back to the point ... on the one hand he talks about a vaporous $1 trillion reduction in the deficit, and on the other hand he's building the country's first $1 trillion agency. Just where to you think all this is going? A weakened America, that's where.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Tax increase found so far from a president's budget that he says lowers taxes and cuts the deficit
· Raising the top marginal income tax rate (at which a majority of small business profits face taxation) from 35% to 39.6%. This is a $709 billion/10 year tax hike
· Raising the capital gains and dividends rate from 15% to 20%
· Raising the death tax rate from 35% to 45% and lowering the death tax exemption amount from $5 million ($10 million for couples) to $3.5 million. This is a $98 billion/ten year tax hike
· Capping the value of itemized deductions at the 28% bracket rate. This will effectively cut tax deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions, property taxes, state and local income or sales taxes, out-of-pocket medical expenses, and unreimbursed employee business expenses. A new means-tested phaseout of itemized deductions limits them even more. This is a $321 billion/ten year tax hike
· New bank taxes totaling $33 billion over ten years
· New international corporate tax hikes totaling $129 billion over ten years
· New life insurance company taxes totaling $14 billion over ten years
· Massive new taxes on energy, including LIFO repeal, Superfund, domestic energy manufacturing, and many others totaling $120 billion over ten years
· Increasing unemployment payroll taxes by $15 billion over ten years
· Taxing management capital gains in an investment partnership ("carried interest") as ordinary income. This is a tax hike of $15 billion over ten years
· A giveaway to the trial lawyers--not letting companies deduct the cost of punitive damages from a lawsuit settlement. This is a tax hike of $300 million over ten years
· Increasing tax penalties, information reporting, and IRS information sharing. This is a ten-year tax hike of $20 billion.
Is this the type of change you want to believe in? Or is it just more Bullshit? This president can only maintain power by consent of the governed. It's the same for your senators and Congresscritters. Better wake up people!
· Raising the capital gains and dividends rate from 15% to 20%
· Raising the death tax rate from 35% to 45% and lowering the death tax exemption amount from $5 million ($10 million for couples) to $3.5 million. This is a $98 billion/ten year tax hike
· Capping the value of itemized deductions at the 28% bracket rate. This will effectively cut tax deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions, property taxes, state and local income or sales taxes, out-of-pocket medical expenses, and unreimbursed employee business expenses. A new means-tested phaseout of itemized deductions limits them even more. This is a $321 billion/ten year tax hike
· New bank taxes totaling $33 billion over ten years
· New international corporate tax hikes totaling $129 billion over ten years
· New life insurance company taxes totaling $14 billion over ten years
· Massive new taxes on energy, including LIFO repeal, Superfund, domestic energy manufacturing, and many others totaling $120 billion over ten years
· Increasing unemployment payroll taxes by $15 billion over ten years
· Taxing management capital gains in an investment partnership ("carried interest") as ordinary income. This is a tax hike of $15 billion over ten years
· A giveaway to the trial lawyers--not letting companies deduct the cost of punitive damages from a lawsuit settlement. This is a tax hike of $300 million over ten years
· Increasing tax penalties, information reporting, and IRS information sharing. This is a ten-year tax hike of $20 billion.
Is this the type of change you want to believe in? Or is it just more Bullshit? This president can only maintain power by consent of the governed. It's the same for your senators and Congresscritters. Better wake up people!
This president is killing us.
The more details we come to learn about the ObamaBudget, the less enthused I become. Not that I was all that impressed to begin with, but it truly seems like we have another Obamanation on our hands. Considering this moment in our history - considering the Tea Party movement's call for fiscal reform, considering the monumental election on 2010, and considering our unprecedented level of spending - you would think that Obama's budget would somehow reflect our urgent need for big change. Wasn't that his word, after all -- Change? Well it seems as though the change that Obama imagined is not the type of change that we need. We need to change the course of programs in this country that are running us dry and crippling our future. Instead, we get even more government, more regulations and more spending. This is not change .... this is simply the George Bush administration on steroids.
So what kind of goodies are we learning as we weed our way through Obama's budget? Let's start with this one from CNSNews: "If the federal budget released by President Barack Obama today is implemented, it will double the national debt over the next 10 years. The current national debt is $13.56 trillion (end of FY 2010). By the end of 2021, that debt would rise to $26.3 trillion under the White House budget."
Or, here's another way to look at it. This from the Washington Times: "President Obama projects that the gross federal debt will top $15 trillion this year, officially equaling the size of the entire U.S. economy, and will jump to nearly $21 trillion in five years' time." Read that again, folks ... our federal debt will equal the size of our entire economy. How can we be expected to grow our way out of something as daunting as that? Or you can think about it like this: The president's budget said debt as a percentage of GDP will top out at 106 percent in 2013 and will stabilize at about 105 percent in the middle of this decade. However ... and this is a big "however" ... this assumes economic growth levels significantly above those projected by the CBO. In other words, those are low-ball figures unless something seriously kick-starts in our economy.
Here's another goodie for you! From the Cato Institute ... Since 2001, spending has skyrocketed in almost every part of the budget. Even with the supposed "cuts" in Obama's budget, here's what the spending increases in some federal bureaucracies will look like:
· 112 percent more spending for the Department of Agriculture;
· 100 percent more spending for the Department of Education;
· 154 percent more spending for the Department of Energy;
· 110 percent more spending for the Department of Health and Human Services;
· 175 percent more spending for the Department of Labor; and
· 82 percent for the Department of Transportation.
Still not getting the picture? Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute takes a look at Obama's budget compared to 2008 ...
· Total federal spending jumped from $2.98 trillion in 2008 to $3.82 trillion in 2011. Obama's budget has outlays at $3.73 trillion in 2012, but that's still up 25 percent from 2008. Spending in 2011 is the highest share of GDP since WWII at 25.3 percent.
· Non-defense discretionary spending jumped from $522 billion in 2008 to $655 billion in 2011. Spending is supposed to fall to $611 billion in 2012, but that's still up 17 percent from 2008.
· Defense spending jumped from $612 billion in 2008 to $761 billion in 2011. Spending is supposed to fall to $730 billion in 2012, but that's still up 19 percent from 2008.
· Entitlement spending jumped from $1.59 trillion in 2008 to $2.19 trillion in 2011. The budget has entitlement spending at $2.14 trillion in 2012, which is up a huge 35 percent from 2008.
You would think that considering the elections of 2010, PrezBo would have changed his budget to fall more in line with the demands of America ..... you would be wrong. Again, Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute explains that Obama's 2011 budget is essentially exactly the same as the one proposed last year (that never passed).
· Last year, Obama proposed total spending for 2012 of $3.76 trillion. His new budget proposes 2012 spending of $3.73 trillion. So, in response to huge and growing concerns about overspending in Washington, the administration has essentially not changed next year's spending target at all.
· Last year, Obama projected spending in 2020 at $5.71 trillion. His new budget has spending in 2020 at $5.42 trillion. So the new focus on fiscal restraint in Washington has convinced the administration to trim just 5 percent off of its previous budget by the end of the decade. The new proposal for spending in 2020 is 42 percent higher than spending this year.
· Last year, Obama's budget showed public debt rising to 77 percent of GDP by 2020. Yet despite all the administration's expressed concern about rising debt, the new budget has exactly the same debt target in 2020 of 77 percent.
· Last year, Obama proposed 2012 discretionary outlays of $1.30 trillion. This year, Obama proposed 2012 discretionary outlays of $1.34 trillion.
Barack Obama must think that the ObamaMedia isn't going to call him out and the American people are too ignorant to know otherwise.
The bigger question are we that stupid and will the Obamamedia let him get away with it?
So what kind of goodies are we learning as we weed our way through Obama's budget? Let's start with this one from CNSNews: "If the federal budget released by President Barack Obama today is implemented, it will double the national debt over the next 10 years. The current national debt is $13.56 trillion (end of FY 2010). By the end of 2021, that debt would rise to $26.3 trillion under the White House budget."
Or, here's another way to look at it. This from the Washington Times: "President Obama projects that the gross federal debt will top $15 trillion this year, officially equaling the size of the entire U.S. economy, and will jump to nearly $21 trillion in five years' time." Read that again, folks ... our federal debt will equal the size of our entire economy. How can we be expected to grow our way out of something as daunting as that? Or you can think about it like this: The president's budget said debt as a percentage of GDP will top out at 106 percent in 2013 and will stabilize at about 105 percent in the middle of this decade. However ... and this is a big "however" ... this assumes economic growth levels significantly above those projected by the CBO. In other words, those are low-ball figures unless something seriously kick-starts in our economy.
Here's another goodie for you! From the Cato Institute ... Since 2001, spending has skyrocketed in almost every part of the budget. Even with the supposed "cuts" in Obama's budget, here's what the spending increases in some federal bureaucracies will look like:
· 112 percent more spending for the Department of Agriculture;
· 100 percent more spending for the Department of Education;
· 154 percent more spending for the Department of Energy;
· 110 percent more spending for the Department of Health and Human Services;
· 175 percent more spending for the Department of Labor; and
· 82 percent for the Department of Transportation.
Still not getting the picture? Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute takes a look at Obama's budget compared to 2008 ...
· Total federal spending jumped from $2.98 trillion in 2008 to $3.82 trillion in 2011. Obama's budget has outlays at $3.73 trillion in 2012, but that's still up 25 percent from 2008. Spending in 2011 is the highest share of GDP since WWII at 25.3 percent.
· Non-defense discretionary spending jumped from $522 billion in 2008 to $655 billion in 2011. Spending is supposed to fall to $611 billion in 2012, but that's still up 17 percent from 2008.
· Defense spending jumped from $612 billion in 2008 to $761 billion in 2011. Spending is supposed to fall to $730 billion in 2012, but that's still up 19 percent from 2008.
· Entitlement spending jumped from $1.59 trillion in 2008 to $2.19 trillion in 2011. The budget has entitlement spending at $2.14 trillion in 2012, which is up a huge 35 percent from 2008.
You would think that considering the elections of 2010, PrezBo would have changed his budget to fall more in line with the demands of America ..... you would be wrong. Again, Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute explains that Obama's 2011 budget is essentially exactly the same as the one proposed last year (that never passed).
· Last year, Obama proposed total spending for 2012 of $3.76 trillion. His new budget proposes 2012 spending of $3.73 trillion. So, in response to huge and growing concerns about overspending in Washington, the administration has essentially not changed next year's spending target at all.
· Last year, Obama projected spending in 2020 at $5.71 trillion. His new budget has spending in 2020 at $5.42 trillion. So the new focus on fiscal restraint in Washington has convinced the administration to trim just 5 percent off of its previous budget by the end of the decade. The new proposal for spending in 2020 is 42 percent higher than spending this year.
· Last year, Obama's budget showed public debt rising to 77 percent of GDP by 2020. Yet despite all the administration's expressed concern about rising debt, the new budget has exactly the same debt target in 2020 of 77 percent.
· Last year, Obama proposed 2012 discretionary outlays of $1.30 trillion. This year, Obama proposed 2012 discretionary outlays of $1.34 trillion.
Barack Obama must think that the ObamaMedia isn't going to call him out and the American people are too ignorant to know otherwise.
The bigger question are we that stupid and will the Obamamedia let him get away with it?
Sunday, February 13, 2011
How does Toyota get its rep back?
So roughly a year ago, reporters went batshit crazy over possessed Toyotas that accelerate without your consent - smashing into other sedans, running into and over people, or worse: ruining floral mailboxes that look like miniature versions of stately homes.
Well, if you're like me, you knew this might be B.S.
And while I felt bad for the victims - I also felt for the car company - which would lose billions trying to remedy a mechanical problem that may not exist.
But reporters never met a hyped-up story they didn't love, and in this case, they grabbed it by the neck and dry humped it to the ground.
Well, now, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, along with NASA, have found that there were no electronic flaws in the cars that would "create dangerous high-speed unintended acceleration incidents."
Their conclusions? The most likely cause of the acceleration was... pedal misapplication."
That's a nice way of saying it's the asshat at the wheel's fault.
I'm sure some people will disagree. But my gut tells me that cars are the safest thing about driving. Elderly drivers, pedestrians and girls frantically searching for breath mints frighten me more.
Which leads me to one thought: why isn't there some kind of punishment for reporters who fall for false, hyped up crap like this?
As far as I can tell, you can write about the dangers of DDT, and be wrong; you can scream about the dangers of nuclear power - and be wrong; you can babble about the coming ice age - and be wrong; and you can then clamor over climate change -and really be wrong.
But everyone forgets.
Which is why, as punishment, they should all be driving Pintos.
And if you disagree with me, you probably drive a Pacer.
A yellow one.
Well, if you're like me, you knew this might be B.S.
And while I felt bad for the victims - I also felt for the car company - which would lose billions trying to remedy a mechanical problem that may not exist.
But reporters never met a hyped-up story they didn't love, and in this case, they grabbed it by the neck and dry humped it to the ground.
Well, now, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, along with NASA, have found that there were no electronic flaws in the cars that would "create dangerous high-speed unintended acceleration incidents."
Their conclusions? The most likely cause of the acceleration was... pedal misapplication."
That's a nice way of saying it's the asshat at the wheel's fault.
I'm sure some people will disagree. But my gut tells me that cars are the safest thing about driving. Elderly drivers, pedestrians and girls frantically searching for breath mints frighten me more.
Which leads me to one thought: why isn't there some kind of punishment for reporters who fall for false, hyped up crap like this?
As far as I can tell, you can write about the dangers of DDT, and be wrong; you can scream about the dangers of nuclear power - and be wrong; you can babble about the coming ice age - and be wrong; and you can then clamor over climate change -and really be wrong.
But everyone forgets.
Which is why, as punishment, they should all be driving Pintos.
And if you disagree with me, you probably drive a Pacer.
A yellow one.
Thursday, February 03, 2011
Egypt
So like you, I've been watching Egypt the same way I watch the Pro Bowl. In my underwear, confused.
Because I think I don't have a dog in the hunt, I check out what people are wearing. Eyeing the men crowding the streets of Cairo, I realize what Goodwill did with Billy Crystal's old sweaters.
Look, I can't tell if these events are a good thing. And I'm inherently suspicious of any stateside protests that erupt so quickly with ready-made signs. I also don't embrace revolution for the sake of revolution. I assume Mubarak is far from a great guy, but I'm not sure his replacement will be any better. And I can't help getting spooked by the name, "Muslim Brotherhood." It sounds like a prison gang from Oz.
(I have a feeling they don't like Israel. Or us, either.)
And some of the commentary kills me. We have climate change alarmists linking unrest to global warming, which makes me want to throw up repeatedly, on climate change alarmists.
But they're half right. Rising food prices do make people angry. And food prices are going up - since we're turning corn into ethanol, instead of chowder. That's surely the fault of climate change, or more precisely, climate change alarmists.
But my guess is, this revolution arrived via four things: Mubarak fatigue, a crummy way of life, an ever present radicalism waiting in the wings, a timid west.
But like you I want a quick, peaceful resolution to this. I'm old enough to remember Iran in 1979, and I'm still ticked off by the Iran of two years ago. In the former, Carter watched a Shah get replaced by a psycho. And in 2009, Obama watched a golden moment for real change slip by. If we had done something about that uprising, maybe this one might be different.
Or at least better than the Pro Bowl.
Because I think I don't have a dog in the hunt, I check out what people are wearing. Eyeing the men crowding the streets of Cairo, I realize what Goodwill did with Billy Crystal's old sweaters.
Look, I can't tell if these events are a good thing. And I'm inherently suspicious of any stateside protests that erupt so quickly with ready-made signs. I also don't embrace revolution for the sake of revolution. I assume Mubarak is far from a great guy, but I'm not sure his replacement will be any better. And I can't help getting spooked by the name, "Muslim Brotherhood." It sounds like a prison gang from Oz.
(I have a feeling they don't like Israel. Or us, either.)
And some of the commentary kills me. We have climate change alarmists linking unrest to global warming, which makes me want to throw up repeatedly, on climate change alarmists.
But they're half right. Rising food prices do make people angry. And food prices are going up - since we're turning corn into ethanol, instead of chowder. That's surely the fault of climate change, or more precisely, climate change alarmists.
But my guess is, this revolution arrived via four things: Mubarak fatigue, a crummy way of life, an ever present radicalism waiting in the wings, a timid west.
But like you I want a quick, peaceful resolution to this. I'm old enough to remember Iran in 1979, and I'm still ticked off by the Iran of two years ago. In the former, Carter watched a Shah get replaced by a psycho. And in 2009, Obama watched a golden moment for real change slip by. If we had done something about that uprising, maybe this one might be different.
Or at least better than the Pro Bowl.
Government produces nothing. It's a zero sum game when the government is spending the money
In the last two years, federal government spending has increased by 27%. Remember that in just the last decade, federal spending has doubled.
Two directions we can go from here. First ... we have to ask just what we have for this massive increase in government spending. Think about it, folks. Isn't the idea to exchange money for something of value? What have we gained in the last decade or over the last two years as a nation? The ONLY answer is more government. And there we have another example of just what is valuable to ObamaZombies ... government. More government. Ever more government. The Democrats DID get something of value for this massive increase in spending .. they got more government.
Secondly .. what's this noise about not being able to cut spending? Are these government-loving Democrats trying to tell us that after they've increased spending by 27% over two years (The ObamaYears) the best they can do right now is to free some spending? Not all government spending ... but just some spending? Not a cut .. but a freeze? You know this is a crock .. and even I know it. There is plenty of room to cut spending ... huge cuts ... but Democrats have a constituency to bribe --- votes to buy --- and that takes money.
Let me remind you of one simple truth when it comes to government spending: "For every dollar injected into the economy by government spending, an equivalent dollar had to be taken out of the community in the form of higher taxes or through borrowing." Sometimes we tend to forget this fact ... we tend to forget that this money would otherwise exist, it would just be spent or invested by different people or entities. By allowing the government to spend it, it gains more power.
Now what if I told you that there is a way to increase federal revenues by more than $5 trillion over the next decade? What if I told you that you could do it without raising taxes? No, I'm not a magician. The answer is simple: grow the economy. Let the private sector do what it does best. This from a blog on Forbes:
Strong economic growth would be expected to increase Federal tax revenues to their long-term average of 18% of GDP -- an increase of 3 full percentage points from their current level. That alone would increase Federal receipts by $450 billion a year, or assuming 3% growth, more than $5 trillion over the next 10 years with no increase in tax rates.
In addition, every one-percentage point increase in economic growth would generate an additional $150 billion in national income and incremental tax revenue of approximately $27 billion a year. Maintaining a 1% higher growth rate would add an additional $1.5 trillion in Federal revenue over the next 10 years.
Just remember that the government does not make money, it collects money and spends it. If you want money in the hands of the producers, get government out of the way. Soon enough there will be more producers, with more money, and therefore the government will have more revenue. And the cycle continues ... but when Democrats says "job creation" they mean "jobs created by the government, funded by the tax payers." Got it?
Two directions we can go from here. First ... we have to ask just what we have for this massive increase in government spending. Think about it, folks. Isn't the idea to exchange money for something of value? What have we gained in the last decade or over the last two years as a nation? The ONLY answer is more government. And there we have another example of just what is valuable to ObamaZombies ... government. More government. Ever more government. The Democrats DID get something of value for this massive increase in spending .. they got more government.
Secondly .. what's this noise about not being able to cut spending? Are these government-loving Democrats trying to tell us that after they've increased spending by 27% over two years (The ObamaYears) the best they can do right now is to free some spending? Not all government spending ... but just some spending? Not a cut .. but a freeze? You know this is a crock .. and even I know it. There is plenty of room to cut spending ... huge cuts ... but Democrats have a constituency to bribe --- votes to buy --- and that takes money.
Let me remind you of one simple truth when it comes to government spending: "For every dollar injected into the economy by government spending, an equivalent dollar had to be taken out of the community in the form of higher taxes or through borrowing." Sometimes we tend to forget this fact ... we tend to forget that this money would otherwise exist, it would just be spent or invested by different people or entities. By allowing the government to spend it, it gains more power.
Now what if I told you that there is a way to increase federal revenues by more than $5 trillion over the next decade? What if I told you that you could do it without raising taxes? No, I'm not a magician. The answer is simple: grow the economy. Let the private sector do what it does best. This from a blog on Forbes:
Strong economic growth would be expected to increase Federal tax revenues to their long-term average of 18% of GDP -- an increase of 3 full percentage points from their current level. That alone would increase Federal receipts by $450 billion a year, or assuming 3% growth, more than $5 trillion over the next 10 years with no increase in tax rates.
In addition, every one-percentage point increase in economic growth would generate an additional $150 billion in national income and incremental tax revenue of approximately $27 billion a year. Maintaining a 1% higher growth rate would add an additional $1.5 trillion in Federal revenue over the next 10 years.
Just remember that the government does not make money, it collects money and spends it. If you want money in the hands of the producers, get government out of the way. Soon enough there will be more producers, with more money, and therefore the government will have more revenue. And the cycle continues ... but when Democrats says "job creation" they mean "jobs created by the government, funded by the tax payers." Got it?
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
We mock what we are to be.
I was in line at the local Publix yesterday. I just can't go through the day without my fat-free French vanilla ice cream. There was an old gentleman checking out in front of me. Certainly in his 80's. I thought that he handled the card reader and his debit card quite well, but the two women working the counter - one ringing up the purchases and the other bagging - evidently felt differently. As the old man walked away one looked at the other and made some joke about how slow the man was. In a completely calm and pleasant way (for which I am known) I said; "Yeah, and about 65 years ago that old man may well have been trying to climb a cliff at Normandy with thousands of Germans trying to kill him." I swiped my card, entered my PIN, punched the "no cash" button (I'm not allowed to carry cash) and then looked up. The cashier had a tear running down her cheek. She looked at me and said "thank you for reminding me." Hopefully after I left she gave a little history lesson to the much-younger bagger.
And to all of the old farts we will encounter today fumbling with debit cards and driving 20 mph below the flow of traffic in the left lane with your blinkers on ... Thank you and God bless you. Thank you every day ... not just on Veteran's Day.
And to all of the old farts we will encounter today fumbling with debit cards and driving 20 mph below the flow of traffic in the left lane with your blinkers on ... Thank you and God bless you. Thank you every day ... not just on Veteran's Day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)