Obama is still holding steadfast to his demand that tax rates be raised on the "rich" (and again I point out that "rich" in his mind means families earning $250K). Why? Republicans have given in and are open to raising the same level of revenue through the closing of loopholes rather than straight up changes in rates. Because he wants to punish success. Obama wants to clearly label successful people as evil and not deserving of their wealth - they didn't build that!
This is a fundamental difference in philosophy from the country our founding fathers envisioned. It is the same view that enabled the administration to portray Mitt Romney as explicitly morally inferior, and implicitly guilty of some crime or wrongdoing, because he is a successful man. This has been accepted and embraced by the Democratic congress in stark contrast to how John Kerry was received as the party's nominee for President, and his net worth was significantly higher. Of course John Kerry wasn't guilty of earning his money, he married into it. Maybe that's a forgivable sin.
And the liberal guilt for making money must not be assuaged by voluntary charitable works, as the pitiable philanthropic efforts of the Obamas and Bidens can attest, they prefer to take wealth by force.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Are Republicans seeing the light?
You know you're in trouble when Nancy Pelosi says you now "see the light", as she said of Republicans in an interview Thursday.
Democrats feel emboldened by Obama's win, the increase in Republican Governors and a strong Republican hold on the house, being cleverly ignored. There has been a lot of discussion on blogs and Twitter about the ramifications in the next election cycle if Republicans don't hold firm on taxes and spending cuts. If only that were true. When have Republicans ever really had their feet held to the fire when they have voted against conservative fiscal principles? We keep electing the same wishy-washy bunch over and over again. We should be demanding accountability for the decisions they make in the name of "bipartisanship".
Grover Norquist was on the right track with the tax pledge, but he did not go far enough - we need a similar pledge on spending - and we need to follow up at the fundraising dinners and voting booth to hold responsible those who choose to renege.
Yikes! And to add insult to injury, the Democrats not only expect Republicans to cave on taxes in the Fiscal Cliff negotiations, they are demanding a massive new stimulus package! The fact that Republicans have not just walked away from the table on this is outrageous.Asked if the GOP would buckle, Pelosi said, “I wouldn’t say buckle. See the light might be a better term.”
Democrats feel emboldened by Obama's win, the increase in Republican Governors and a strong Republican hold on the house, being cleverly ignored. There has been a lot of discussion on blogs and Twitter about the ramifications in the next election cycle if Republicans don't hold firm on taxes and spending cuts. If only that were true. When have Republicans ever really had their feet held to the fire when they have voted against conservative fiscal principles? We keep electing the same wishy-washy bunch over and over again. We should be demanding accountability for the decisions they make in the name of "bipartisanship".
Grover Norquist was on the right track with the tax pledge, but he did not go far enough - we need a similar pledge on spending - and we need to follow up at the fundraising dinners and voting booth to hold responsible those who choose to renege.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Should we just let the sequestration happen?
Watching the Sunday morning new shows over the weekend, I was stunned to see that while there was much discussion about whether taxes on millionaires, that now includes families making over $250,000 by the way, but none on what spending to cut. Not one of the members of the House or Senate, or even the pundits for that matter, were calling on the President and Congress to cut spending.
It seems that all the concern around the Fiscal Cliff negotiations is extended only to taxes, not the out of control spending that is driving the country toward bankruptcy. All of the participants, regardless of party, spent their time lamenting how this tax rate increase or removing that loophole would increase revenues. I heard plenty of Republican's willing to dishonor the Norquist pledge saying it doesn't matter in this time of trillion dollar deficits, but I did not hear Democrats pledging to play their part and reduce entitlements. This is the story we've heard from big government for far too long -- no matter how much revenue the Federal Government is able to collect, they will be able to easily spend it all. Keynesian Democrats have been convinced they can spend their way out of the recession, and see where that's gotten us. And no matter what lip-service we've heard over the years from Republicans on big spending, both parties are complicit, but we are in WAY over our heads with no end in sight.
We need to take a serious look at ALL spending, and right off the bat, begin means testing for Social Security and Medicare. Is it theft to exclude payments to rich seniors who have paid into the system their whole working lives? Yes, but it has to be done. Frankly, social security is a drop in the bucket for wealthy people who can afford their retirement without it, and those same people should not be partaking of government sponsored healthcare. I know they have paid into it, but they are screwing their grandchildren out of a lot more by expecting to receive it. The current senior population is not "the Greatest Generation" for nothing; they would do what's right and accept the means testing. Baby Boomers, on the other hand, are selfish enough to not care what kind of legacy they are leaving and would fight it, but again, it must be done as part of comprehensive cuts in all spending.
And what of the "sequestration" that is no longer generating discussion? Let it happen. We are currently spending about $3.6T a year and bringing in $2.5T. Sequestration is an idea that has been around for decades, but his statements in the 2nd presidential debate notwithstanding, was promoted by the Obama administration in order to serve as a "stick" during budget negotiations. It will enforce an automatic, $1.2T cut to spending to both defense and non-defense spending in order to meet a balanced budget.
However we do it, the people of this country need to fight for cuts, to force Congress to turn from the path we've been traveling and give back the promise of a strong America for our children, not a bankrupt one.
It seems that all the concern around the Fiscal Cliff negotiations is extended only to taxes, not the out of control spending that is driving the country toward bankruptcy. All of the participants, regardless of party, spent their time lamenting how this tax rate increase or removing that loophole would increase revenues. I heard plenty of Republican's willing to dishonor the Norquist pledge saying it doesn't matter in this time of trillion dollar deficits, but I did not hear Democrats pledging to play their part and reduce entitlements. This is the story we've heard from big government for far too long -- no matter how much revenue the Federal Government is able to collect, they will be able to easily spend it all. Keynesian Democrats have been convinced they can spend their way out of the recession, and see where that's gotten us. And no matter what lip-service we've heard over the years from Republicans on big spending, both parties are complicit, but we are in WAY over our heads with no end in sight.
1947-2012 Federal Government Tax Revenues vs. Spending
And what of the "sequestration" that is no longer generating discussion? Let it happen. We are currently spending about $3.6T a year and bringing in $2.5T. Sequestration is an idea that has been around for decades, but his statements in the 2nd presidential debate notwithstanding, was promoted by the Obama administration in order to serve as a "stick" during budget negotiations. It will enforce an automatic, $1.2T cut to spending to both defense and non-defense spending in order to meet a balanced budget.
However we do it, the people of this country need to fight for cuts, to force Congress to turn from the path we've been traveling and give back the promise of a strong America for our children, not a bankrupt one.
Monday, November 26, 2012
Liberal War on Women
Why do liberals see everyone as victims? Could it be that this approach increases the number of people who need "protecting", thus those who are dependent on Big Brother for that "protection"? It has also turned out to be an effective way of deflecting any criticism of the actions and positions of those on the left.
This past week Republicans began to back off their critique of Susan Rice's refusal to speak truthfully in the weeks following the despicable terrorist strike on our consulate in Benghazi, having been accused of being racist and/or sexist for questioning Ms. Rice's testimony to Congress about the attack. As a woman, I am deeply offended that liberals think Rice (and, by extension, all women) is too fragile to withstand criticism as she executes her role as US ambassador to the UN and Obama administration and foreign affairs spokesperson. Susan Rice is an accomplished woman who has held a variety of national security and foreign policy roles in the US government; she is not some tittering sorority girl requiring protection from big bad bullies questioning her judgement.
I do not believe Rice sees herself as a victim; however, this tactic has been used increasingly by those on the Left as a way to deflect attention away from actual policy matters. Liberals will scream from the rooftops when the stated positions or job performance of anyone of color and/or women are questioned. If you voted for Romney over Obama you're a racist. If Congress questions why Susan Rice presented an inaccurate briefing, clearly intending to deflect acknowledgement of acts of terrorism before the election, then they are both racist and sexist. Far from acknowledging that she was set out as a sacrificial lamb and put in that position then hung out to dry by the administration, they decry the questions as sexist. Maybe Nancy Pelosi isn't woman enough to take criticism, but the rest of women in America certainly are.
Unfortunately, this tactic is working. Over the weekend on the Sunday morning news shows, John McCain was definitely reacting to the Democratic name-calling when he clearly tempered his comments on Rice's potential nomination for Secretary of State. If Republicans are going to give into this nonsense and back off, then off course it validates the Left's position and strengthens this line of attack. Republicans need to man up and refudiate these claims for the outrageous and spurious accusations they are, and condemn Demorats for the scurrilous vagabonds they are.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Say Hello to the Police State
I am hoping that Patrick Leahy's Senate bill allowing a plethora of federal agencies to have warrantless access to Americans' email is defeated, but given recent history, I am doubtful. This would just be the latest violation of our civil liberties to be written into law by elected representatives with only the interests of the state and making the jobs of law enforcement easier. Rather than forcing them to go through the process of collecting enough evidence to support a warrant, they'll have open access to our email accounts and Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter messages.
Do Americans understand that there are federal laws in place that enable the government to track your cell phone and the GPS in your car without a warrant? Fortunately, the Supreme Court ruled that warrantless GPS car tracking is unconstitutional. We can expect the email access case to be, like that of warrantless cell phone tracking, challenged in the courts, and they may or may not be judged constitutional. How chilling that these laws are passed with almost no objection or coverage by the mainstream press. Are we that willing to give up our most basic privacy for the sake of "safety", or is it disinterest? Either way, it is a disturbing step down the path opposed to anything our founding fathers envisioned for a free people
Do Americans understand that there are federal laws in place that enable the government to track your cell phone and the GPS in your car without a warrant? Fortunately, the Supreme Court ruled that warrantless GPS car tracking is unconstitutional. We can expect the email access case to be, like that of warrantless cell phone tracking, challenged in the courts, and they may or may not be judged constitutional. How chilling that these laws are passed with almost no objection or coverage by the mainstream press. Are we that willing to give up our most basic privacy for the sake of "safety", or is it disinterest? Either way, it is a disturbing step down the path opposed to anything our founding fathers envisioned for a free people
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Walking the Obamacare plank
With Obama's re-election and a split Congress, Obamacare is now the law of the land and there is no chance of repeal. Companies like Papa John's have already courted criticism for announcing they will lay off workers and/or cut workers' hours in response to the tax increases Obamacare will bring in 2013. Many other business are or will be following suit.
According to a list of of new 2013 taxes compiled by Americans for Tax Reform, the new taxes will include:
Investment Surcharge - What this has to do with healthcare has not been explained, but it will apply a 3.8% increase to capital gains and dividends for households making over $250,000. This hits small business disproportionately hard as many small business owners fall in this category, and I'm not talking about Donald Trump.
"Special Needs" Tax - Caps the amount that can be saved in Flexible Spending Accounts at $2500 per year. It is called the "Special Needs" tax because it particularly hurts families with special needs children as they spend proportionally more on health care and tuition for special education.
Medical Device Manufacturers Tax - A 2.3% excise tax on medical devices worth more than $100. An excise tax is one that is imposed on a manufacture of goods rather than on the consumption of that item. It is a "hidden" tax as most people don't see the tax, only an increase in costs. This has already hit the devices industry hard and multiple employers have announced layoffs.
Medical Spending Deductions Cap - The new tax increases the threshold for the amount of medical spending above which the spending can be deducted from 7.5% of their income to 10% of their income. People with ongoing medical expenses that fall under the threshold can no longer file for the deduction, and people with higher expenses lose out on 2.5% of what they had previously been able to deduct.
Medicare Payroll Tax - Employers already pay an existing payroll tax for each employee. The rate employers must pay will increase. With raises and bonuses already squeezed by the stagnant economy, employers will be even less able to offer raises when the cost of affected employee goes up.
How is the economy supposed to recover when the cost of doing business increases like this? Small businesses employing 49 people or fewer will be incentivized NOT to hire that 50th person as they will then fall under the Obamacare provisions. And keep in mind penalty calculations for lack of compliance for companies with more than 50 employees are made using the number of full-time staff; part-time employees are not included. This effectively incentivizes companies to maximize the number of employees working 30 hrs a week or fewer. Underemployment is already a significant problem right now and Obamacare disincentives will make the situation even worse. We've just seen the tip of the iceberg.
These taxes will go into effect no matter what the results of the "Fiscal Cliff" negotiations are, as they are not part of the Bush era tax cuts, and the ones I've discussed above are only those slated to go into effect in 2013. There is another set that will take effect in 2014 and 2015. It appears that the last nail has ben driven into the coffin holding any hopes we may have had of reversing the economic downturn any time soon.
According to a list of of new 2013 taxes compiled by Americans for Tax Reform, the new taxes will include:
Investment Surcharge - What this has to do with healthcare has not been explained, but it will apply a 3.8% increase to capital gains and dividends for households making over $250,000. This hits small business disproportionately hard as many small business owners fall in this category, and I'm not talking about Donald Trump.
"Special Needs" Tax - Caps the amount that can be saved in Flexible Spending Accounts at $2500 per year. It is called the "Special Needs" tax because it particularly hurts families with special needs children as they spend proportionally more on health care and tuition for special education.
Medical Device Manufacturers Tax - A 2.3% excise tax on medical devices worth more than $100. An excise tax is one that is imposed on a manufacture of goods rather than on the consumption of that item. It is a "hidden" tax as most people don't see the tax, only an increase in costs. This has already hit the devices industry hard and multiple employers have announced layoffs.
Medical Spending Deductions Cap - The new tax increases the threshold for the amount of medical spending above which the spending can be deducted from 7.5% of their income to 10% of their income. People with ongoing medical expenses that fall under the threshold can no longer file for the deduction, and people with higher expenses lose out on 2.5% of what they had previously been able to deduct.
Medicare Payroll Tax - Employers already pay an existing payroll tax for each employee. The rate employers must pay will increase. With raises and bonuses already squeezed by the stagnant economy, employers will be even less able to offer raises when the cost of affected employee goes up.
How is the economy supposed to recover when the cost of doing business increases like this? Small businesses employing 49 people or fewer will be incentivized NOT to hire that 50th person as they will then fall under the Obamacare provisions. And keep in mind penalty calculations for lack of compliance for companies with more than 50 employees are made using the number of full-time staff; part-time employees are not included. This effectively incentivizes companies to maximize the number of employees working 30 hrs a week or fewer. Underemployment is already a significant problem right now and Obamacare disincentives will make the situation even worse. We've just seen the tip of the iceberg.
These taxes will go into effect no matter what the results of the "Fiscal Cliff" negotiations are, as they are not part of the Bush era tax cuts, and the ones I've discussed above are only those slated to go into effect in 2013. There is another set that will take effect in 2014 and 2015. It appears that the last nail has ben driven into the coffin holding any hopes we may have had of reversing the economic downturn any time soon.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Critical thinking anyone?
A friend of mine shared this image to her Facebook page, and I saw it in my news feed. I assume many of you have seen this over the past few days as well. What does it tell you about people who share it? What has happened to the power of critical thinking? The President is credited with things he had no part of, while ignoring the things for which he is actually responsible, many of which are contrary to "liberal" values, including killing American citizens with no due process using drone strikes, initiating military actions in foreign countries (like the drone strike bombings in Yemen the day after the election), and broadening the governments powers of surveillance and indefinite detention. The states passed referenda on gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana. In fact, the DEA, a federal agency accountable to the President, has already said they will be enforcing federal drug laws, thereby overriding the state laws. I just don't get it.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
The Stimulus Slide
A fiscal stimulus package is the gift that keeps on giving! It provides 1) a temporary bump in GDP 2) an equivalent drop in GDP when it's over and 3) a further drop in GDP later as it's paid for by higher taxes or by increasing the debt. That's why the Congressional Budget Office warned that the Obama stimulus would hurt the economy in the long run. It is essentially a parachute adding drag to an already labored system. The greater the stimulus, the greater the effects - both positive and negative - with the negative effects outweighing the positive. The effect is magnified when stimulus money goes outside of the American economy to other countries as much of the Obama stimulus did; we get a smaller bump but still pay the full boat.
Are we so willing to close our eyes to the fate of other big spending countries, or is it selfishness and the growing "what's in it for me" culture? I think about the future impacts of today's runaway spending and wonder of we're going to follow in Greece's footsteps with unemployment over 25% and people rioting in the streets as the government imposes unavoidable austerity measures? Unless we get spending under control to the point where we can actually cut the debt, we are well along that road.
Are we so willing to close our eyes to the fate of other big spending countries, or is it selfishness and the growing "what's in it for me" culture? I think about the future impacts of today's runaway spending and wonder of we're going to follow in Greece's footsteps with unemployment over 25% and people rioting in the streets as the government imposes unavoidable austerity measures? Unless we get spending under control to the point where we can actually cut the debt, we are well along that road.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
The Fiscal Cliff
I'm sure many are thinking today that with the election having gone their way, all with be right with the world and President Obama will be free to continue with the policies he promoted during his first term. The split government, however, will make both the president's and the congreses jobs more difficult, as the last two years have demonstrated. We live in an age of intense partisanship, where the opposing parties really do have fundamental differences in the way they see the country and the role of government. Yesterday's election resulted in a second term for Obama and maintained Democratic control of the Senate, but the House remains firmly in control by the Republicans.
The term "Fiscal Cliff" is used to refer to the set of economic circumstances we currently face as we near the end of 2012 with the Bush-era and 2011 temporary tax cuts set to expire, automatic cuts in entitlement programs agreed to as part of the debt ceiling negotiations ready to take effect, and new taxes kicking in as part of Obamacare. It is unlikely the President and lame duck Congress will be able to work out a compromise in the next month to stave off the impending hit to business and households in 2013. In all likelihood more temporary stop-gap measures will be put into place and will just serve to keep the country sluggishly marching in place and the economy as stagnant as it has been the last four years. It is worth noting that the President has yet to get a budget passed by a split congress and the Democratically led Senate has vowed to block Republican proposals that cut taxes or actual spending.
The other "Fiscal Cliff" we face is the long-term crisis looming as we grow our National Debt to unsustainable levels with ever-increasing budget deficits. President Obama is seemingly disinterested in or lacking understanding of the implications to the nation's future economic growth if the current trend is not reversed. Of course, the effects are relatively long-term, rather than the immediate time horizon the president and his constituency look to. While it was hoped we could spend our way out of the current recession (a la the "stimulus"), we have seen that this does not work, sustainable jobs are not created and our National Debt has grown to $16 trillion - larger than GDP - the measure of overall production for the entire country.
As the debt grows, interests rates increase on the debt as the risk of default grows. Anyone remember Latin American countries defaulting on their national debt? But can't we just grow the economy to pay it back? As anyone with increasing levels of personal debt knows, a greater percentage of your income goes to servicing your debt, squeezing house hold spending. As the nations debt increases, taxes need to be raised to cover the debt burden while domestic spending gets squeezed putting the brakes on the economy even further. Contrary to popular belief promoted during the election, we could seize the entire income of the top 1%, or 5% for that matter, and still not make a dent in the debt! This then becomes the future we are saddling our children and children's children with while we refuse to reign in spending and refuse to learn the lessons of history and spending our way out of trouble.
The term "Fiscal Cliff" is used to refer to the set of economic circumstances we currently face as we near the end of 2012 with the Bush-era and 2011 temporary tax cuts set to expire, automatic cuts in entitlement programs agreed to as part of the debt ceiling negotiations ready to take effect, and new taxes kicking in as part of Obamacare. It is unlikely the President and lame duck Congress will be able to work out a compromise in the next month to stave off the impending hit to business and households in 2013. In all likelihood more temporary stop-gap measures will be put into place and will just serve to keep the country sluggishly marching in place and the economy as stagnant as it has been the last four years. It is worth noting that the President has yet to get a budget passed by a split congress and the Democratically led Senate has vowed to block Republican proposals that cut taxes or actual spending.
The other "Fiscal Cliff" we face is the long-term crisis looming as we grow our National Debt to unsustainable levels with ever-increasing budget deficits. President Obama is seemingly disinterested in or lacking understanding of the implications to the nation's future economic growth if the current trend is not reversed. Of course, the effects are relatively long-term, rather than the immediate time horizon the president and his constituency look to. While it was hoped we could spend our way out of the current recession (a la the "stimulus"), we have seen that this does not work, sustainable jobs are not created and our National Debt has grown to $16 trillion - larger than GDP - the measure of overall production for the entire country.
As the debt grows, interests rates increase on the debt as the risk of default grows. Anyone remember Latin American countries defaulting on their national debt? But can't we just grow the economy to pay it back? As anyone with increasing levels of personal debt knows, a greater percentage of your income goes to servicing your debt, squeezing house hold spending. As the nations debt increases, taxes need to be raised to cover the debt burden while domestic spending gets squeezed putting the brakes on the economy even further. Contrary to popular belief promoted during the election, we could seize the entire income of the top 1%, or 5% for that matter, and still not make a dent in the debt! This then becomes the future we are saddling our children and children's children with while we refuse to reign in spending and refuse to learn the lessons of history and spending our way out of trouble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
