Eliminate Tax Loopholes for the Rich -Starting with GM

I've been thinking a lot about our fearless leader's call for higher taxes on the rich. Close those "tax loopholes" that help them to avoid paying their "fair share".



Let's start here:





Chevy Volt - Code Blue



The MSRP for the 2011 Chevrolet Volt in the U.S. starts at $40,280. Starts. That's the base model. For a car that goes (according to the EPA) 35 miles in all-electric mode. The total range is 379 miles (gas and electric).



Now, I don't know about you, but thirty five miles will not get me to work and back on any given day. Hell, some days, three hundred and seventy nine miles won't cut it either. So, who buys a car that is not reliable enough to get you to work and back on a single charge and is too small to be comfortable on a long trip?



It is ill suited, therefore to be one's primary or sole means of transportation, so, who is it that can afford a $40,000 subcompact to drive, aside from commutes or vacations? The rich. Anyone could buy a Chevy Cruze, which is a gas version of the Volt (only $23,000 cheaper), with more head room, legroom and a longer range. Who buys an expensive novelty car that's not very practical, just to prove a point, or make one feel better about themselves and the "environment"? This car has Ed Begley, Jr. written all over it!



So, if the rich, or at least, moderately well off, want to buy a Volt, let them! But, about those "loopholes"...

Quantifying just how much taxpayer money will have been wasted on the hastily developed Volt is no easy feat. Start with the $50 billion bailout (without which none of this would have been necessary), add $240 million in Energy Department grants doled out to G.M. last summer, $150 million in federal money to the Volt’s Korean battery supplier, up to $1.5 billion in tax breaks for purchasers and other consumer incentives, and some significant portion of the $14 billion loan G.M. got in 2008 for “retooling” its plants, and you’ve got some idea of how much taxpayer cash is built into every Volt.

But, wait! (As they say) There's more! Let's give every rich person who buys a Chevy Volt a $7,500 tax credit (read: "loophole"), so all the poor people who can't even afford a single new car can help subsidize the rich to buy an extra one!



Now, am I really incensed that the rich are taking advantage of this "loophole", not available to poorer folks? Not really. Even with a $7,500 tax break, the Volt is still overpriced and under featured. The sales numbers of the Volt, even after a flood of government money are anemic and somewhat pathetic.



So, what's the point? It's this: One man's loophole is simply another man's deduction. The demagoguery of using the term "loophole" to generate class envy, by implying an unfair advantage (in areas where you really just want to raise taxes) while ignoring similar tax breaks in areas you want to encourage, is hypocritical to say the least.



When this administration tells you they want to "close the loopholes" so that the rich "pay their fair share", what they are talking about is raising taxes, pure and simple. It has been noted that even taxing "the rich" at 100% and confiscating everything they have, would not solve the problems created by a spendthrift Congress, so "taxing the rich" is just a bit of class envy political theater, used to distract the voters away from the real problem by demonstrating that they are at least "doing something". (And sticking it to those rich guys, doggone it!)



And although Barack Obama has acknowledged that it is not a good idea to raise taxes during a recession, still, he has tried to 1) end the Bush across the board tax cuts last December, 2) eliminate "loopholes" like depreciation on private jets, and 3) calls for a quote unquote "balanced" approach that includes even more tax increases.



And speaking of "balance", if raising taxes in a recession is a bad thing, how is it "balanced" to do a bad thing with a good thing? This whole nonsense about "balancing" spending cuts with tax increases (What about five to one? Ten to one? Etc.) can be illustrated thusly: You've been buying clean ground beef and one day your butcher decides he's going to "balance" that by selling a little beef with e.coli mixed in.



Would this "balanced" approach be more palatable if the mixture is ten to one beef instead of five to one? Or would it still bad for you?



"Balance" is probably a word that "focus grouped" well, and Obama would much rather tell you he's taking a "balanced approach" than to tell you he's actually in favor of raising taxes during a recession. But don't buy it... and change your butcher!

"May You Live in Interesting Times."

Someone recently asked about the origin of "May you live in interesting times."



I said, It was originally considered a curse in China. Considering our state of our indebtedness, and to whom, perhaps it should be, "May you live in compound interesting times."



A little more background, if you will. I did a little study of Chinese history back in my college days and even wrote a paper on the history of technology in China. As I recall from my far distant and semi-misspent youth, the Chinese venerated tradition. Find the perfect order and then don't change it, no matter what!



Given the complexity and variety of technological innovations that came out of China, it was somewhat surprising that they would have been eclipsed by the West. Everyone knows the Chinese invented gunpowder, and if you think about it, modern ceramics originated in a country once known for its "china". They invented the compass and innovations in sailing technology, but the culture of tradition, making each generation match the one before was not a suitable womb for innovation.



The West, on the other hand, embraced innovation with a passion. And each innovation caused the innovators to try to improve upon the one before, And as you can imagine, brought about a lot of that dreaded "change". (No, I wasn't going to go there, but thanks for paying attention!) A whole new genre of writing was created about things never even dreamt of before. Hence, they called them "novels". (That's a novel idea!)



You should hunt an old 8 track cartridge down on Craig's List or give someone a nickel for one at a garage sale. Give it to your kids and tell them what it was. Tell them how much music it would hold. And then, tell them about the skeins of magnetic tape that could often be seen at the base of stop signs, where frustrated music lovers would throw the tangled mess out a window after the player "ate" it.



It was innovation that put an ipod jack in my new car's dash instead of an 8 track slot. Innovation that created the computer or smart phone that you are reading this on this very moment. (And now I'll go there) And innovation can continue to create wealth today, if government would loosen its stranglehold on the economy. Investors need to know the extent of the risk to which they are exposing their capital, and have a reasonable rate of return. This can be accomplished by lowering the tax rates, which typically and historically bring in more revenue to the government through increased activity.



Second, bureaucratic hurdles should be lowered or removed. (Think Chinese traditions) Unnecessary and redundant agencies place a burden on new and existing businesses. It's time to trade in a few score of paper pushers on the government payroll in favor of the businesses that will create your next job, or invent the next innovation or technology that will make our future brighter.



Thirdly, we need a common sense approach to our energy need. I doubt that wind and solar are the future fuel for American prosperity. These are boutique sources now, at best, and both require a duplication of capacity for those times the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. Until such time as technology makes a quantum leap to cold fusion, greater solar cell efficiency or some unknown and as yet undiscovered technology, petroleum is the fuel of America's economy. And rising petroleum costs make American made goods less competitive, America's crops more expensive and degrades the quality of life for all Americans, save the wealthiest.



We have been getting lame excuses since at least the Clinton administration as to why drilling in the most God forsaken corner of ANWR wouldn't produce any noticeable results "for ten years". So, in doing nothing but obstruct the oil industry to please the environmentalist wacko wing of your base, these oil fields would be producing wealth for the oil companies, Alaska and the US, though taxes, and contributing to the world supply of oil to reduce the demand starting around 2003? Literally, thanks for nothing! /sarcasm



"Interesting times" can be very unsettling, hence the curse aspect. And, if the times were "interesting" it would have to be because they didn't conform to the old and better ways of our traditions. Change is not always for the best. Things changed in New Orleans with a hurricane and in Japan with an earthquake and a tsunami. Some of you long for the good old days of 2008, when you had a job and a decent, if not spectacular 401k. And change happened in 2008 when the nation elected the most incompetent or destructive President since Jimmy Carter.



But, change happens. Right now, we need a double dose of it in Washington. We need a president and a Congress that will make real and not phony spending cuts. The recent downgrade of America's credit rating is a demonstration that world markets will not tolerate the Washington Kabuki dance of fiscal pretense. America has got to get serious about its spending problem. Congress needs to be told that they must find some projects worthy of cuts or termination beyond defense and care for the elderly.



Can you tell me today of a single program, outside of the military (and I'm sure if we looked, we could find some waste and inefficiency there too!), that anyone of either party has suggested that we eliminate, either because it is redundant or no longer serves a useful purpose? And could we not also finds tons of spending for things that might have been a good idea in times of plenty that we can no longer afford? This is also true of state and local governments. You'll see a two story modern art "sculpture" in a public park, and junkets to exotic lands for Very Important Conferences, but we either need to raise your taxes or cut back on police, fire, schools and libraries.



The time for lip service and political gamesmanship has passed. This next election cycle, we need to replace anyone who gets in the way of real financial and debt reform.



This nation was built upon freedom and innovation. It's time once again that we freed ourselves from the tyranny of bureaucrats and big spending politicians, and rallied to the ballot boxes in 2012 to return sanity and self control to government.



When you think about it, that'd be quite an innovation!



Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Prescriptions for Recovery and Disaster

There is a myth constantly going around about the sorry state of manufacturing in this country. Since I work for an American manufacturer, whose products sell worldwide, this has been of some interest to me. I recently engaged in a dialogue with a fellow over at Big Government who believes, from what I can gather, that a return to protectionist trade policies and tariffs is America's only hope. Please, don't take my word for it, his arguments in full are here.

I will post portions of the exchange, leaving out, perhaps a little more of the "colorful" language, and opting for brevity over a verbatim transcript, since I have not gathered anyone's permission but my own for the quotes. Forgive me if the following lacks the structure of a formal essay. I believe the material speaks for itself, without a large scale edit and re-writing and makes some valid points in the aftermath of the US's recent credit downgrade.

I merely mentioned the fact that Obama's hand picked adviser for job growth is busy exporting jobs as we speak. Obama also talks about "closing loopholes" where big companies avoid paying taxes, while Jeffrey Immelt is essentially making GE X-ray a Chinese subsidiary of GE, and whoops! not subject to US taxes. That enough hypocrisy for you?

We cannot "demand" that other countries raise their standards. Ever hear of the concept of "sovereign nations"? If you want to take a stand against other countries using cheaper labor and/or less than ideal working conditions, please feel free to boycott all products not made in the US. Hope you're not awfully fond of television. We haven't made any sets in the US since before the age of digital TV.

Your fantasies about tariffs are duly noted.

This was followed by the point that what had made the US "the greatest economic power in the world", was "fair trade policies".

My rejoinder:

"Do you believe it is fair to trade with a country that artificially pegs its currency?" Are you suggesting an embargo? Adopt the Cuban model? That would be one way to stop the US from "trying to compete" with these countries.

Tariffs start trade wars. The best one can hope for with tariffs, is for certain favored industries to benefit. Prices to consumers will go up (great time to raise prices, during a recession, right?) and the countries who are the targets of the tariffs will undoubtedly respond with tariffs of their own, making our goods less profitable to sell abroad.

Unless we can find some poor country who has nothing we want to buy. Then we can make their goods less profitable and our country can grow richer at their expense? Is that your idea of "fair"?

There are things that can be done to improve the business climate here in our favor. Eliminate unnecessary regulations, which raise the costs of doing business, (please note my use of the word "unnecessary" and spare me additional straw men.) lower the tax rates and make them permanent. Too many businesses are paralyzed into inactivity because of the uncertainty of tax laws, health care requirements and regulations.

Fair trade is when I trade what I have for what you have and both parties are satisfied. If business is to grow and unemployment is to recede, the government has got to get out of the way. Primarily in reducing the tax burden that feeds a bloated government filled with endless redundant departments, all of which combine to put the brakes on our economy.

Personally, I try not to buy goods made in China, for a number of reasons. I wouldn't have given them most favored nation status. But slapping any tariffs on them to protect any domestic industry is doomed to failure. It would only hurt the consumer and raise unemployment among low skilled workers and teenagers.

What made the US the greatest economic power in the world, was freedom. To the extent that government takes freedom away, it cripples economic recovery.

After a bit of back and forth, in typical liberal fashion, (whether he is one or not), he seems to take delight in dealing with what I haven't said, rather than what I did. A sort of Mind Read Fail. He advocated the return to the policies of Alexander Hamilton, and an 11 point plan... from the eighteenth century. (1791 for the math impaired)

My reply:

"Only through manufacturing, when $5 worth of iron ore is converted into a $2000 car door, or $1 worth of raw wool is converted into a $1000 Calvin Klein suit, is real wealth created" Sorry! I reject your premise. And if you thought about it for a minute, so would you. What makes a " $1 worth of raw wool... into a $1000 Calvin Klein suit"? The obvious answer is "Calvin Klein". That's what makes it different from a $100 Steve Garvey suit or from a $2 ball of yarn your granny uses to knit you a scarf.

Intellectual property creates "real wealth". You can manufacture $.25 CD-ROMs and Blu-rays all day long, but if you want to sell it for $10 or $25 or $200, you'd better put some music or a movie or some software on it that I want to buy. **

And there is "real wealth" in our resources as well. You scoff about $5 worth of iron ore, but no one mines just five dollars worth. There is real wealth created when it is mined and again when it is smelted and again when it is manufactured into something useful. And, if you do it right, once again when it is recycled.

And despite many myths and old wives tales, there is still a lot of manufacturing going on in this country. There are just not as many manufacturing jobs. By automating processes in their plants (and moving to right to work states), many manufacturers have been able to remain competitive with foreign labor. New Balance shoes, for example. http://www.newbalance.com/usa/

Energy creates wealth. Without energy, the $5 ore never gets mined or smelted or the wool stitched into an Armani suit. Without energy, the worker cannot get to the factory which cannot keep its doors open without it. Real wealth can be found in drilling and refining our own oil. Reducing energy costs would make every industry in the country more profitable, from the food on your table, to the shoes on your feet to the car that you drive.

This administration has chosen to hobble the energy industry at every turn, choosing instead to subsidize mythical* green energy and penalize every other existing source of energy. There is real wealth in the ground and more to be had in refining, manufacturing gasoline, if you will, if this administration and all the green weenies on the left would just get out of the way.

Reduce the pointless and counterproductive regulatory morass, lower corporate taxes, which are merely a hidden tax on the consumer, allow our nation's energy companies to drill and mine the resources we have and you will see a big turnaround in this country.

*In the sense of providing enough power to drive our current economy, much less the future.

** With high speed downloading, even the "manufactured" CD-ROM is virtually obsolete. (See: high button shoes/buggy whips)

FYI: "Since 1975, (US) manufacturing output has more than doubled"

In looking to document one of my points to "hockeynation" I ran across this (and the chart above):

Since 1975, manufacturing output has more than doubled, while employment in the sector has decreased by 31%. While these American job losses are indeed sobering, they are not an indication of declining U.S. competitiveness. In fact, these statistics reveal that the average American manufacturer is over three times more productive today than they were in 1975 – a sure sign of economic progress.

The true cause of dwindling American competitiveness is a tax code that puts domestic firms at a clear disadvantage – not a lack of skill or innovation on the part of the American worker.

- Veronique de Rugy

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Michele Bachmann Voted No, and Says it Proudly.

This may be the lady to watch in 2012.

H/T Reaganite Republican

Turbo Tax Timmy Geithner Has His Head in the Clouds

I watched most of Turbo Tax Timmy's interview on Fox News Sunday this AM. (Transcript here.) A few things, I thought, were notable.

One was the apparently focus grouped word "cloud". Three times Turbo Tax Timmy mentioned "raising the cloud of default" that hovers over the country.

The idea that we're going to spend another seven months lifting the cloud of default from the American economy...

But they're going to look at whether we lift the cloud of default off the American economy...

And if Congress makes some sensible decisions right now, lifts this cloud of dysfunction, of default, off of the American economy...

He also used "specter" (the ghost, not Arlen) and I believe misspoke it once as "spectrum".

...we're trying to do avoid not just default today, but the specter of default in the future.

Note particularly the partisan blame game in this next quote:

And this spectrum of default that Republicans have put over the country is hurting the confidence of average Americans.

So, when Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House in 2010, and were Constitutionally required to submit a budget by October of 2010, wherein they could have addressed any budgetary cuts required, they failed to do so and this is why the Republicans are at fault? Takes two to tango, Timmy! The Democrats' failure to provide any leadership at all up to this point is what fomented the crisis. And now, any Republican plan is met by demagoguery from the Dems (You can't spell "demagogue" without "dem"), which is what they do best.

For the Dems to paint themselves as blameless in this negotiation, in which there are things upon which they themselves will not compromise (like class envy), is rank hypocrisy. Had the 2010 budget been passed, perhaps there would at least be more of a framework to work with here.

However, it was for political reasons that the Dems abdicated their Constitutional duties. They knew that if the voters saw exactly how irresponsible their spending plans were, there would have been more Democrats defeated in 2010. So they ignored the Constitution for the sake of holding on to power, hiding their intentions from the will of the people, so that there would be more of them to demagogue whatever plan the real adults in the room, the Republicans, would put forward.

On a side note, when you're watching the Sunday shows, listen for that one word or phrase that keeps creeping into the conversation, like "cloud of default". It usually means that it's a word that focus groups reacted favorably to. In other words, it will help people buy what you're selling! The most adept interviewees will work this word both into their opening statement and again the last sentence they utter. The gratuitous use of the word in between those two statements is what the spinmeisters hope you will take away from their efforts.

Anyway, little Timmy believes that raising the "cloud of default" that hovers over the country is to do that which is "most important". Actually, kicking this can down the road past the next election is what this administration considers most important.

“We have to lift this credit default from the economy for -- you know, for the next 18 months. We have to take that threat off the table through the election”

Yeah. Right! Obama does not want his stewardship of the economy to be an issue in the 2012 election. The Dems would rather sweep it under the rug than to deal honestly with a problem that affects every household in the country. Notice that Obama and the Dems have stated they will not negotiate on any plan that needs to be re-examined between now and November 2012. Getting Obama re-elected is, as Ford used to say, "Job One".

There is class envy in Geithner's answers. The so called "shared burden", which of course means taking more from those who are productive, because the poor don't have a lot to share. (More on this in another post.) Note the language that Geithner uses, and know that it is not accidental. Geithner wants to raise taxes on the "most fortunate Americans". Get that? people haven't really earned their money, they just "got lucky". "Fortune" smiled upon them and money apparently rained from the skies!

The hypocrisy in this? Our tax code is not set up to tax the fortunate, so much as people who actually produce something. If you inherited a lot of money, you may be "fortunate", but that's not "income". If you work for a living, or own a small business, that's income. And small businesses, which create the bulk of jobs in this country, are squarely in the cross hairs of this administration and their tax "revenue" plans.

Unfortunately, most liberals use a "static" model of the economy, which is "How do you divide up a pie that always stays the same size?" Only, it doesn't stay the same size. More economic activity can increase the size of the pie, providing more and more to more people, while disincentives can discourage economic growth and production and leave an even smaller "pie" to be divided.

Liberal ideologues, like Obama and Geithner talk about increasing tax "revenues", when historically, revenues to the treasury have increased with the introduction of tax cuts**. Tax cuts stimulate the economy, which employs more people who become taxpayers and increases the volume of productivity, which means the government collects less tax on any given individual, but more than makes up for it in the volume.

To the liberal ideologue, this is unacceptable. It offends their sense of "fairness". They would rather see Americans unemployed and businesses ruined than to compromise their class envy based belief system. Candidate Obama said as much, that he would make taxes more "fair" even if it meant less revenue to the government. This was long before he told Joe the Plumber that he wanted to "spread the wealth".

Then, there is the obligatory: "Bush did it." When Chris Wallace pressed Geithner on poor unemployment and growth issues, here's what he had to say:

the American economy is still suffering undeniably from the tragic after-effects of the crisis this president inherited.

Translation: The effects of Bush's spending and participation in two "unpaid for" wars were so bad that Obama spending three to four times as much and involving us in yet another war and assorted :kinetic military actions" (KMA seems to be a recurring theme for the Obama administration, along with WTF*) cannot be blamed. The "denial" is all ours! Shutting down oil production in the Gulf and refusing to allow drilling and other activities that would increase the nation's wealth (and tax a portion of it as it grows) is not as important as appeasing the environmentalist wackos and trying to foist "green" solutions to every problem. Despite massive influxes of government cash, electric car companies and solar companies are going bankrupt or cutting back. Obama is sacrificing the economy of today for some imaginary tomorrow. Obama and Tim Geithner's plans for "winning" sound more like Charlie Sheen's.

I'll post video from the interview as soon as it becomes available.

*They say it means "Winning the future". Most people say it with regards to the present actions of the president.

**JFK knew this. If only we had a few Democrats like JFK again! Well, in a sense we do. They're all Republicans now!

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

A Primer on How Socialists View Your Money

It's theirs.

"It would be nice if we could keep every tax break, but we can’t afford them," Obama said. "Because if we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, or for hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners, or for oil and gas companies pulling in huge profits without our help – then we’ll have to make even deeper cuts somewhere else."

Hear that, people? The government "can't afford" to let you keep any more of your money than they decide is best for you! Aside from the class envy engendered by the rhetoric of "tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, or for hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners", the fact is, as was experienced by JFK, when he lowed tax rates, when you lower tax rates, you increase tax revenues to the government because there is more activity generated. People have more incentive to invest in their businesses when there is a monetary gain expected.

Obama, however, is on the record of saying that he favors raising taxes, even if lowered tax rates generated more income to the government, for the sake of "fairness".



"Pay as you go". Gosh. We should remind Obama of this between now and 2012 to ask him how his massive "stimulus" bills were "pay as you go"? Where were the other cuts in spending, Mr. Obama?

Expect to hear the mantra of "tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires" over and over again between now and election 2012. Remember, with Obama, it's not about fixing the economy or putting people back to work, it's about "fairness". If everyone (except the ruling class which he so conveniently seems to be a part of) is equality broke, then it's "fair". If everyone (except the ruling class which he so conveniently seems to be a part of) has crappy health care, at least it's "fair"!

If gas is five dollars a gallon and bologna is ten bucks a pound and you can't turn your thermostat higher than 67° in the winter time, at least we'll have the satisfaction of knowing we really stuck it to those corporate jet owners...who used to employ us for good wages!

H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Quote du jour

Knowing...that when tax rates were reduced, government revenue actually increased due to private-sector economic growth — I knew that the projected revenue loss from tax cuts was a mere accounting fiction.

-Robert Stacy McCain

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-ipwad) Finally Pays Taxes on Her Private Plane

What is it with Democrats and not paying taxes? Claire McCaskill has never struck me as the sharpest knife in the Democrat drawer, from her lackluster appearances on the Sunday morning shows, but here, she shows the same tin ear most Democrat politicians do when it comes to meeting their civic obligations.

In a conference call with reporters, Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill just disclosed that she failed to pay $287,000 in property taxes related to her co-ownership of a private aircraft. This scandal comes quickly on the heels of recent revelations that McCaskill improperly billed taxpayers for use of the same private aircraft, for which McCaskill reimbursed the Treasury $88,000

Tom Daschle gets chauffeured around in a limo and "forgets" to pay his fair share of taxes for the privilege. Turbo Tax Timmy Geithner "forgets" to pay his taxes. Claire McCaskill flies around in her own private plane and "forgets" to pay taxes on it (and inappropriately bills some of the expenses to the taxpayer to boot!).

Maybe she's angling for a cabinet position in the Obama administration?

H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything

Obama Compared to JFK...and Found Wanting

Rush Limbaugh, on his show yesterday, played a montage of the fawning MSM comparing Obama in his speech to the US Chamber of Commerce, to JFK.

E.J. DIONNE: It was a John F. Kennedy sort of "ask, uh, what you can do for your country" speech!

CONNELL McSHANE: A JFK moment...

LARRY KUDLOW: ...stealing a page from JFK.

JOHN HARWOOD: A JFK-style challenge to businesses...

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: ...a Kennedy-like call to action!

MARK CRUMPTON: ...hearken back to President Kennedy!

CHRISTINE ROMANS: ...sounded like JFK!

Then, he played clips from President Kennedy, whose policies are diametrically opposed to whatever Obama has done the last two years or proposes doing for the next two (or, God forbid, six!)

"Every dollar released from taxation, that is spent or invested, will help create a new job and a new salary, and these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries, and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy."

JFK called for across the board tax cuts to create new jobs and more growth. Obama doesn't want to release dollars from taxation, he wants as many of them as he can get his hands on.

"If government is to retain the confidence of the people, it must not spend more than can be justified (give or take a trillion) on grounds of national need or spent with maximum efficiency."

If JFK were delivering this speech today, he would have to pause there for a laugh.

The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business, is to reduce the burden on private income, and the deterrence to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II, to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peacetime.

Does that sound anything like Obama to you? Me neither!

When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid off, investment increases and profits are higher. Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment.

That sounds suspiciously like a jobs program to me! Or we could raise taxes on business to make them "pay their fair share", even if in reality those taxes are added to the cost of the products you buy, as a hidden tax on the consumer, which is a regressive tax on the poor.

I was twelve years old when Kennedy ran for president. That didn't stop me from supporting him. I still have the Kennedy for President button I wore in grade school. Hearing him again reminds me of how far the Democrats have fallen in the last two score and ten years.

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Moonbats and Taxes

In my predictions for 2011, I predicted that one of the charges against conservatives would be:

"Republicans want to enact a reckless millionaire tax bailout". (And that's just Mooove On dot org!)

Today, one of the tiny minded trolls on another forum I frequent, used these words:

the Bush tax gift to the rich

Close enough. Anyway, I just thought I should come up with an acronym to tell it like it really is! How the government takes the most money away from its most productive citizens. And this is what I came up with:

Obama's Confiscation of Revenue from America's Productive.

Tell your Congress Critter that you are tired of Obama's C.R.A.P. and expect him or her to do something about it!

(Well, I for one am feeling better!)

How Much is a Human Life Worth?

A little over a thousand bucks, according to a chart provided by Marjorie Dannenfelser:



Christmas is a time of year when we typically think about a little baby coming into the world. But, the inclusion of Federal funding for Planned Parenthood in the pending Omnibus Spending bill that the lame duck Congress is trying to ram through, it may be a good time to think about how Congress spends our money on keeping little babies out of this world.

More at Red State

Barack Obama Stands in the Shadow of a Real President

Obama would have done well to go to that party early. Standing there looking like a Stepford wife, or a little kid waiting patiently for a cookie, Bill, once he was behind the podium, virtually ignored him and kept 100% of his focus on his audience.

One of the men looked presidential and the other looked like he was in a wax museum.

Watch the video. Isn't he lifelike?

As far as the substance of Clinton's speech? He touts manufacturing of batteries, which is dependent on rare earths from the Chinese and he touted two manufacturing efforts owned by the Chinese that, in his opinion, helped get Harry Reid re-elected.

Bill has always been the best friend to the Chinese that money could buy!

Update: Just because this makes liberals' head 'splode!


Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

House Democrats Defy Obama- For the Moment

Remember John Kerry's most famous flip flop? In October 2003, the year after voting to support the use of force in Iraq, Kerry voted against a supplemental funding bill for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”

It looks like House Democrats now are going to take an "I voted for it before I voted against it" stance on the extension of the Bush tax cuts.

(CNN) - Defying President Obama, House Democrats voted Thursday not to bring up the tax package that he negotiated with Republicans in its current form.

"This message today is very simple: That in the form that it was negotiated, it is not acceptable to the House Democratic caucus. It's as simple as that," said Democratic Congressman Chris Van Hollen.

"We will continue to try and work with the White House and our Republican colleagues to try and make sure we do something right for the economy and right for jobs, and a balanced package as we go forward," he said.

The vote comes a day after Vice President Biden made clear to House Democrats behind closed doors that the deal would unravel if any changes were made.

"Wow did the [White House] mishandle this," a senior House Democratic Source told CNN. "Breathtaking. Members have major substantive concerns and they should have gently guided people to the finish line."

Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon said: "They said take it or leave it. We left it."

Conventional wisdom has it that the Democrats will not force a 50% tax increase on the lowest income tax bracket, so look at this as mere empty posturing...what once was called "boob bait for the bubbas", to try to appease their base before voting before the end of the year to make a deal and extend the "Bush Tax Cuts", rather than to be blamed for the Obama Tax Increases".

Their campaign ads will say they all voted against it. (The first time.) The few who are allowed to vote against the final bill, will be those in tight races whom House Democrat leadership believe may have a prayer of surviving in 2012.


H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Obama Praises the Bush Tax Cuts*

*He just doesn't know it.


Listening to Obama describe the last minute deal being put together to stave off one of the largest tax increases in US history, Obama spoke of his justification for taking the stand he did. If no action were taken, he said, the average family's taxes would go up $3,000.

Wow! Did he just admit that the Bush tax cuts have saved the average family $30,000 in taxes over the last ten years??? Aside from the fact that the Democrats have been characterizing the Bush tax cuts as "tax cuts for the rich", for the last ten years, all of the sudden, when they were due to expire, the facts come out that they they were across the board cuts for low and middle income families as well!

And the mumbo jumbo about anyone being "held hostage"? If anyone was holding the middle class tax payers hostage, it was the Democrats. First by limiting the Bush tax cuts to ten years ago. Democrats insisted upon the ten year "sunset" clause. Republicans wanted the tax cuts to be permanent. Still do. It's the Democrats who want your taxes to go up. And if not you, then some other hard working American.

Second, the Democrats tried to hold the middle class hostage by threatening to raise taxes on the middle class, if the Republicans insisted on not raising taxes on anyone, in a recession.
(Wonder if they're dizzy from the spin, yet?)

Besides, the really, really wealthy in this country, the Kerry-Heinz, Kennedy kind, have full time counsel on how to avoid paying taxes. The taxes Obama and the Democrats want to increase are on the most productive working people in America. Many of them small businesses and job creators.

I got an email from MoooveOn dot org with the following:

Can you call Sens. Feinstein and Boxer and tell them that Americans everywhere are counting on them to fight like hell to stop tax bailouts for millionaires?

Last time I looked, both Feinstein and Boxer are millionaires. Why do I get the suspicion that the kind of tax increase we are talking about won't effect them personally?

This is just class warfare Kabuki. Under the guise of "taxing the rich", Democrats want to increase taxes on working people and small businesses. If the next Congress has a spine, perhaps they will make these cuts permanent, end the uncertainty and work to reduce spending, where the real problems are.

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

"Giving Money to the Very Rich" - the Liberal Mindset on Display

On Fox News Sunday this AM, Juan Williams displayed the typical liberal mindset concerning government taxation: It's their money.
If you earn or possess money or other assets in any way, it's because the government, in their beneficent mercy, allowed you to keep it. Senator Claire McCaskill was on FNS as well, touting the same line, just not in such short compass as Mr. Williams.

How, the convoluted lexicon of liberalspeak, did "not taking from" ever equal a "gift"? If the Bush tax cuts are extended, the government is not "giving" anything to anyone. They are just taking at the same rate they did before. For the sake of accuracy, it was the Democrats who forced the sunset provision in the Bush Tax Cuts in the first place, and this administration, who are cheerleaders for letting the tax cuts expire, will be responsible for what should properly be characterized as the "Obama Tax Increases".

Since a tax increase "on the rich" will play well to Obama's base, Democrats think this bit of class envy will give them a populist cachet. But, let's change the currency for a moment, shall we? Many parents speak of their children as a "treasure". Let's apply liberal taxspeak to child rearing:

First, if you have more than two children, the government will "give" you two of them. It's not "fair" for you to have more than two while some people have none at all. So, two of the children you already have will be "given" to you by the government, and any others, for the sake of fairness, will be redistributed. (It may be that some of those without children wouldn't want to take any, but they have to. It's only "fair"!)

Allowing people to keep more of what they earn is not "giving" them anything at all. All this is aside from the argument about taxing gross income, rather than net income, which the libs like to gloss over. A small business with a gross income of $250,000 will not take home anywhere near that much. If they invest money back into the business or hold back reserves (or at least try to) to meet payroll for their employees when revenues are down, they take home even less.

Ask yourself, who is going to employ more people? A business grossing $250,000 or a business grossing $1,000,000? Why take money out of the hands of the people who create the most jobs? Then ask yourself, is the government better suited to direct wealth to create solid, self sustaining jobs with a minimum of waste, fraud and abuse or the private sector? Rather than address the fact that these taxes (and new regulations) will impact small businesses hard, Democrats are focusing on class envy.

But, for now, I'd settle for getting rid of the Orwellian Newspeak that allowing people to keep more of what they earn is "giving money" to them. It's only fair...

Cross posted at LCR.

Alan Grayson's Classless Class Envy

First: When he says "Extend the President Obama tax cuts", he's lying. Obama is only presiding over tax increases. The argument is over how many people's taxes he raises. Not raising your taxes from what they are now is not a "cut".

Second, The "Bush tax cuts" were for the lower and middle class, too, not just the wealthy.

Last, couldn't he find any $600 sneakers for the wealthy to buy? Trips to Spain or India? How much to rent the entire Taj Mahal Hotel?

Thank you, soon to be ex-Rep. Alan Grayson for the view from your colon.

Video via The last Tradition

A Tale of Four Tax Cheats

One of these four men is going to jail for three years for not paying his taxes.

(The other three are politicians.)

Update: Special thanks to Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit for the link!

Virginia Puts the Lie to Obama's Lameness

Lame. [leym] lam·er, lam·est, verb, lamed, lam·ing, noun
–adjective
1. crippled or physically disabled, esp. in the foot or leg so as to limp or walk with difficulty.
2. impaired or disabled through defect or injury: a lame arm.
3. weak; inadequate; unsatisfactory; clumsy: a lame excuse.
4. Slang . out of touch with modern fads or trends; unsophisticated.

Now that we have thoroughly discussed President Obama's "drove the economy in the ditch" analogy, let's take a look at how Republican "drivers" are making out in states where they are still "behind the wheel". From the Washington Post:

President Obama and other Democrats are going around the country making the same argument as party leaders made in Virginia last year: If you elect Republicans, they'll drive the car right back into the ditch.
Virginians overwhelmingly ignored that advice, and a year later many say they have few regrets and are generally pleased - if not ecstatic - about what Republicans have done.

Excuse me, but did she say "ecstatic"??

Voters are crediting republican Gov. Robert F. McDonnell with coming up with deep budget cuts and even ending the fiscal year with a small surplus, without the tax increase that former Gov. Kaine had recommended.

..."This state hasn't gone backwards," said Steven Herborn, 55, of Chesapeake. He has supported candidates in both parties over the years but wants Republicans to take over Congress next week.

...And more than a dozen independent voters in Virginia who backed Obama in 2008 said in interviews that they didn't think the state had moved backward under McDonnell and Republicans in the past year. A few who didn't vote for him still gave him credit for working hard and focusing on the right priorities.

Sounds like a case of "Who are you going to believe? Me, or your own lying eyes?"
The Democrats' lack of traction with with their message, combined with a disastrous economy and double digit unemployment caused Virginians to look at the results of their politicians and not the rhetoric.

How bad is it for Democrats in Virginia? They're losing retired government workers!

Mary Kay Rieg, 60, a retired federal employee from Alexandria...enthusiastically backed Obama in 2008, hoping he'd bring a new brand of post-partisan politics to Washington.

She's been so disappointed that next week she plans to vote against Rep. James P. Moran Jr., a 10-term incumbent, for the first time and cast her ballot for Republican Patrick Murray instead.

"President Obama came in under very special circumstances, and those circumstances called for restraint," she said. "And Democrats have not shown restraint."

That's not to say that the election will be a cakewalk or that there are no problems to overcome. Yet, these are encouraging signs that Tuesday's election might be like the punchline to a lawyer joke:

What do you call 100 lawyers on the ocean floor?

A start.

H/T 2H9

Cross posted at LCR, Lady Cincinnatus, Say Anything.

Jerry Brown Panders (More Than Usual*) for Votes

So what's new? Jerry Brown has been making a big deal over saying he will not raise taxes...without voter approval. What he has not said is that he won't further bankrupt the state. Here's what he has to say about paying for illegals to go to school:







"We have enough wealth..." We? You got a mouse in your pocket, Jerry? The state is broke. We don't have enough wealth to meet the obligations we already have without taking on more. This is pandering, plain and simple.



More at the Blog Prof



Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel, Say Anything



*Updated headline

Barbara "Ma'am" Boxer On Imaginary Numbers

Barbara Bouncer demonstrates those legendary math skills that prevented her from even balancing her own checkbook at the House Bank:



More at the Weekly Standard

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel, Say Anything