Archive for the ‘Move back to Conservatism’ Category
- In: amnesty | Barack Obama | Big Labor Unions | Climategate | Commentary | Economy/Money | Environment | EPA Environmental Protection Agency | Federal Reserve | Government Failure Series from Cato Institute | Health Care | Health Care Reform Summary | illegal immigration | Immigration | Ineffective Government Programs | Iran and Nuclear weapons | Islam, Muslim, jihad, terrorist | Isreal Fight for Survival | jihad in the world | Know the enemies of America | Left's and Obama's attack on religion | Leftist violence in America | Middle East and Muslims | Move back to Conservatism | Muslims in the United States | NEA National Education Association | Obama admistration | Obama Against America | Obama and ethics | Obama Executive Decress | Obamcare repeal and replace | Off Shore Drilling for oil and natural gas | Progressives Movement to Destroy America | public service employees | Redistributing wealth | taking back our schools | Unfunded liabilities
- Leave a Comment
Dear Readers, I am sure you will find many of the articles in this month’s Heritage Insider-Online of interest so for those who do not subscribe I am putting them on my blog for you use. I have gotten emails from many asking why I am no longer blogging. Frankly because I have said all I can say about the evil of Barack Obama and now can only sit back and cry for my country. Even if the Senate becomes Republican this November and a sane President is elected in 2016 there has been so much damage done that it will take decades to just claw ourselves back to the point we were at when this monster was first elected in 2008. Being an old lady I won’t live to see our America return to the respected place in the world and a country of independent proud people that I knew as a young woman.
I have watched the downward slide of America from the mid 1960’s with Democrat President Lyndon Johnson and his failed “Great Society”. Even at age 23 I knew that Medicare was wrong! Only 40% of elderly Americans were unable to afford health care insurance but instead of helping those individuals the insurance companies insisted that ALL the elderly must be given health insurance paid for by the younger tax payers. The same thi9ng is happening now with Obamacare—the only way the insurance companies will accept everyone with coverage regardless of health or life style or preexisting conditions is if every0ne is forced into the system. So stupid! Give help to those few who need it and let the rest of us take care of ourselves as independent decent Americans always have. It is a fact that has been proven over and over: Any thing the government gets into is badly run, in efficient, full of fraud and outright thievery and therefore very very costly to the tax payers. Medicare, Medicaid and student loans are prime examples of this rule!
I watched the schools and universities as an educator being “dumb down to the lowest common denominator by see and say reading and new math and rewriting history and replacing it with social studies and social justice.
Now during these past 6 years I have watched a President of the United States again and again ignore and violate the laws stated in the Constitution of the United States and no one stopping him! Yes, I have live thru the down fall of a great civilization and I will not live to see the rise to greatness again, but I have faith in Americans. We are a unique nation form by outstanding people who were wise far beyond their times. We today have the blood of those pioneers beating in our hearts and this is augmented daily by new blood of those who leave the old behind and come to the land of the freedom and rights of man so that they too can soar above the masses in the world in the only country on earth that allows its citizens that freedom. .I have faith that we Americans will walk proud again but after the damage done during these 50+ years it will take decades to return.
You, the readers of my blog are the people who will lead the way. God bless you. Sincerely, BB
August 9, 2014
34 studies, including a Pacific Research Institute handbook on tobacco taxation, and a Hudson Institute report on Iraq’s second Sunni insurgency
Notes on the Week
The environmental costs of delaying Keystone, What does the strategic trade lit really say about the Export-Import Bank? Is administrative law running off the rails?
Figure out what now for ObamaCare
Budget & Taxation
• The Export-Import Bank: What the Scholarship Says – The Heritage Foundation
• Abolishing the Corporate Income Tax Could Be Good
for Everyone – National Center for Policy Analysis
• Handbook of Tobacco Taxation – Pacific Research Institute
• Sales Tax Holidays: Politically Expedient but Poor Tax Policy – Tax Foundation
The Constitution/Civil Liberties
• An Originalist Future – Federalist Society
• Repression in China and Its Consequences in Xinjiang – Hudson Institute
• Private Property Interrupted: Protecting Texas Property Owners from Regulatory Takings Abuse – Texas Public Policy Foundation
Crime, Justice & the Law
• Criminal Law and the Administrative State: The Problem with Criminal Regulations – The Heritage Foundation
• The Long-Hours Luxury – American Enterprise Institute
• Misallocation, Property Rights, and Access to Finance – Cato Institute
• Do Labour Shortages Exist in Canada? Reconciling the Views of Employers and Economists – Fraser Institute
• “Middle-Out” Economics? – Hoover Institution
• How Many Jobs Does Intellectual Property Create? – Mercatus Center
• Thomas Piketty’s False Depiction of Wealth in America – Tax Foundation
• Philadelphia School Trends, 2002-03 to 2012-13 – Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives
Foreign Policy/International Affairs
• Setting a Course for Obama’s Rudderless Africa Policy – The Heritage Foundation
• The Failure of the E.U. – Hoover Institution
• Iraq’s Second Sunni Insurgency – Hudson Institute
• The Collective Security Treaty Organization: Past Struggles and Future Prospects – Hudson Institute
• Changing the Rules of Health Care: Mobile Health and Challenges for Regulation – American Enterprise Institute
• Direct Primary Care: An Innovative Alternative to Conventional Health Insurance – The Heritage Foundation
• How Obamacare Fuels Health Care Market Consolidation – The Heritage Foundation
• A Time for Reform: Close and Consolidate Texas’ State Supported Living Centers – Texas Public Policy Foundation
• Sustaining the Economic Rise of Africa – Cato Institute
• Market Solutions Should Be Central to U.S.’s Taiwan Policy – The Heritage Foundation
• Asserting Influence and Power in the 21st Century: The NLRB Focuses on Assisting Non-Union Employees – Federalist Society
Monetary Policy/Financial Regulation
• “Choking Off” Disfavored Businesses and Their Clients: How Operation Choke Point Undermines the Rule of Law and Harms the
Economy – The Heritage Foundation
• Autonomous Military Technology: Opportunities and Challenges for Policy and Law – The Heritage Foundation
• Size Isn’t All that Matters – Hoover Institution
Natural Resources, Energy, Environment, & Science
• The Keystone Delay Is Costing us More than Jobs and Revenue – American Action Forum
• Who Watches the Watchmen? Global Warming in the Media – Capital Research Center
• Rethinking Energy: Supplying Competitive Electricity Rates – Center of the American Experiment
• A Guide to the 2014 Social Security Trustees Report – e21 – Economic Policies for the 21st Century
• Social Security Trustees Report: Unfunded Liability Increased $1.1 Trillion and Projected Insolvency in 2033 – The Heritage Foundation
The environmental costs of delaying Keystone: The delay in the Keystone pipeline costs more than jobs and income. There are also environmental consequences that come from shifting pipeline transport of oil to rail transport. Catrina Rorke extrapolates what the costs may be:
If the president had approved the Keystone XL pipeline, it would have prevented the release of an additional 2.7 to 7.4 million tons of CO2 to the atmosphere – the equivalent of taking 500,000 to 1.5 million passenger vehicles off the road or shutting down one coal facility. […]
From the State Department report, we know that the rail options emit 28-42 percent more during normal operations as compared to the Keystone XL pipeline. […]
Replacing the capacity of the Keystone XL pipeline with rail transport risks additional oil spills and the release of up to 23,318 additional barrels of oil – nearly a million gallons of useful fuel entering the environment instead of the economy. […]
The delay in building the Keystone XL pipeline risks up to 1,065 additional injuries and 159 additional fatalities.
By virtue of serving urbanized areas, railroads carry a certain risk to the public. A July 2013 train derailment in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec devastated the downtown and caused 47 deaths. Though this tragedy is unique in size, the paths of railways intersect frequently with population centers. The Keystone XL pipeline is designed to minimize this risk, routed to avoid sensitive, sacred, and historic sites, as well as densely populated areas. [American Action Forum, August 6]
Rewarding work: “One factor that is often overlooked in the debate over causes of income inequality is a shift in the distribution of working hours,” writes Tino Sanandaji: “The rich now work more than the poor.”
Between 1979 and 2006, the share of low-wage earners who worked long hours declined from 22 percent to 13 percent. In the same time period the share of high-wage earners who worked long hours increased from 15 to 27 percent. Results were similar when education rather than income is used to segment the labor market. Most of the change is driven by changes in hours worked per employee, not by changes in employment rates. For men lacking high-school education, one-third of the decline in hours is driven by reduced employment rates, while the rest is driven by decline in hours among the employed. Among college-educated men, the entire increase in the long hours is driven by those with employment working more hours.
And the decline of work among the poor is a tragedy, he writes:
In simple economic models, working less and having more leisure increases well-being. A common but mistaken view of this reversal in work inequality is that it has benefited the low skilled because they can consume as much as before without having to work as hard. This ignores the complexity of human psychology.
Humanist theories of happiness, starting with Aristotle, have long argued that the key to life satisfaction is living a purpose-driven life and aiming for higher goals. Modern psychology similarly emphasizes work and purpose for a full life. Abraham Maslow viewed fulfilling one’s potential or “self-actualization” as the pinnacle level of happiness. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi argued that people are happiest when they are in a state of “flow,” or a complete absorption in a challenging and intrinsically motivated activity. [The American, August 4]
What does a gas company have to do with ObamaCare? If you’ve been following the debate about whether ObamaCare creates tax credits in just the state exchanges or in both the federal and state exchanges, you may have heard the word “Chevron.” What’s that all about?
“Chevron” refers to Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council a Supreme Court decision from 1984. Randolph May, observing the 30th anniversary of the decision, describes Chevron’s central holding this way: “When a statutory provision is ambiguous, if the agency’s interpretation is ‘based on a permissible construction of the statute,’ then the agency’s interpretation is to be given ‘controlling weight.’”
When there is ambiguity, why not defer to the agencies? May explains the problem:
Chevron, by virtue of giving agency interpretations of ambiguous statutory provisions “controlling weight,” has facilitated the steady growth of the regulatory state. This certainly is a likely result because of the natural bureaucratic imperative for agencies, granted leeway to do so, to interpret delegations of authority in a way that expands, rather than contracts, their own authority. […]
To the extent that the Chevron doctrine—the counter-Marbury—in fact facilitates aggrandizement of power by government officials all too eager to expand administrative authority, there is a ready remedy. Congress can choose to legislate in a way that makes its intent unmistakably clear. Remember, absent ambiguity in the statute, a reviewing court never reaches the question of how much deference is due the agency’s own interpretation.
Congress legislating with unmistakable clarity? I understand that in the legislative sausage-making process this is an ideal infrequently realized. In many instances, Congress actually intends, whether or not it says so explicitly, to leave “gap-filling” for the agencies. That way, when an agency’s action rouses the public’s ire, Congress can blame the bureaucrats for overreaching. [The Hill, August 8
In King v. Burwell, the Fourth Circuit relied on Chevron analysis to find that tax credits were permissible in the federal exchanges; in Halbig v. Burwell, the D.C. Circuit decided that the meaning of “an Exchange established by the State,” was plain enough that there was no gap for the IRS to fill. Thus, there was no Chevron analysis needed.
The Constitution doesn’t exist for the convenience of the government. For the past century or so, the federal government has been using its spending and regulatory powers to “turn states into mere field offices of the federal government,” write Richard Epstein and Mario Loyola. Their article in The Atlantic explains not only how we got here but why we should care:
A common justification for federal overreach is that it allows for administrative convenience, but the Constitution doesn’t exist for the convenience of the government. Its purpose is to protect the people from government abuse. By leaving most government spending and regulation within the exclusive domain of states, the original Constitution created a dynamic framework of interstate regulatory competition. Citizens and businesses could choose to live in whatever state they wanted, a choice they could make with increasing ease as the nation’s communications and transportation dramatically improved, and states competed to offer an attractive package of services and taxation.
Just like cable-TV providers offer premium channels in pricy packages and basic cable at a cut rate, some states and municipalities offered lots of services and benefits—and higher taxes—while others offered smaller government and a lower tax bill. That larger menu meant more choices.
This interstate regulatory competition could accommodate a wide diversity of approaches, from the progressive safety blanket of Wisconsin to the frontier freedom of Texas. Vigorous interstate competition tended to punish excessive government, leading for example to higher growth rates in states with less restrictive labor laws. It also made it more difficult for special interests to wield government as a tool for extracting benefits from the rest of society in the form of hidden subsidies, cartels, and monopolies. Where special interests reign, market efficiency is lost, leaving everyone worse off.
Even today, states with high taxes, tough zoning laws, and restrictive labor laws tend to lose out to those with a lighter footprint—witness the tens of thousands of people—especially poor people—moving to Texas every year. The easier it is for people to choose between state options, the weaker the case for federal control of markets.
That leaves heavily regulated and highly taxed states at a disadvantage in the competition for people and businesses. Those states have cleverly solved much of their problem by using the federal government to impose higher taxes and regulation across the states. Burdened by often-costly progressive policies, states such as California, Massachusetts, and New York form coalitions in Congress to neutralize the advantage of states like Wyoming, Texas, and Florida. Protection from competition is the strongest impetus for the integration of federal and state governments under an umbrella of overall federal control.
That process undercuts one of the great advantages of a modern economy: the choice that mobility offers to families and businesses. It hastens the erosion of one of our most essential constitutional protections, the separate domains of federal and state governments, each confined to its proper sphere of authority. [The Atlantic, July 31]
The courts aren’t on board with the plan for unrestrained executive power—at least not all of them, yet. To hear liberals tell the story, the most important thing to know about Halbig v. Burwell is that the D.C. Circuit Court denied ObamaCare subsidies to millions of people in the 36 states that chose not to establish an exchange. The detail that the law says the subsidies are available “through an Exchange established by the State” gets second billing if it shows up at all. Liberals thus blame the court for striking down that which Congress failed to create. What an odd way of looking at judicial decisions. As Michael Greve notes, the acceptance of the government’s arguments as at all plausible is a signal that administrative law is coming apart at the seams. He writes:
[W]ould we actually be having this overwrought discussion over a perfectly straightforward Administrative Law and statutory interpretation question—and a perfectly conventional judicial resolution—if Halbig were about something other than Obamacare? Hardly.
By way of illustration, take a look at Sierra Club v. EPA, 536 F.3d 673 (D.C. Cir. 2008), a case over Title V permitting under the Clean Air Act. In defense of a regulation that took some liberty with the language of Title V, the EPA argued that (1) the statutory language (“each” permit) didn’t quite mean what it said, when read in connection with other provisions; (2) the statutory context warranted a more latitudinarian reading; and (3) EPA’s “programmatic” reading would better serve congressional purposes. In substance, that’s the government’s Halbig defense. Sierra Club rejected all three arguments; and you can clip entire paragraphs from the opinion and paste them into Halbig without anyone noticing. (Judge Griffith wrote both opinions.) No, it’s not a conservative cabal: in Sierra Club, the enviros won. And no, it’s not an outlier: some Administrative Law textbooks excerpt Sierra Club as an example of how Chevron(Step I) analysis works.
Why isn’t the supposed error precisely a case for a “we-messed-up-and-here-is-what-we-meant” statutory override, of the sort that Congress has enacted time and again for civil rights laws, Medicaid, Medicare, and any number of other entitlement statutes? In short, why isn’t Halbig obviously right? And why isn’t that answer congenial to liberals who, from the New Deal to infinity and beyond, have extolled statutory and even constitutional litigation as a “dialogue” between the Court and the political branches, especially the Congress?
Because they no longer believe it. Obamacare was no inartful compromise; it was a brutal cramdown. There’s no kicking this back to Congress; the judges’ rulings, Obamacare supporters wail, spell the life or death of the statute. And when in doubt, the liberals say (for once), choose life. [Library of Law and Liberty, August 6]
Video of the week: Economics is everywhere, including between the goalposts. The start of football season is less than a month away. From Steve Horwitz and Learn Liberty, here’s a look at how the game’s concussion crisis reveals an important lesson about public policy:
Pulling back the curtain on Healthcare.gov: Remember the fiasco that was the launch of Healthcare.gov? The Government Accountability Office has looked into the matter and the agency recently told Congress that, indeed, there was a fiasco. Peter Suderman reports some of the details of the GAO’s testimony:
One of the big problems was that federal health bureaucrats kept changing their minds during the development process. The Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS), which was charged with building the exchange system, “incurred significant cost increases, schedule slips, and delayed system functionality.” These delays were largely due to “changing requirements that were exacerbated by inconsistent oversight.” The dithering cost time, and it also cost money. Between September 2011 and February 2014, development cost estimates blew up, from about $56 million to $209 million for the federal marketplace. Costs for the data hub, another key part of the exchange, went from $30 million to $85 million.
It was a classic bureaucratic circus. No one knew who actually had the authority to tell contractors what to do, so contractors got jerked around and sent on fruitless tasks, or asked to do work that they shouldn’t have been doing. The GAO report says that CMS improperly spent $30 million on bonus features that it didn’t technically have the authority to order.
Delays and costs piled up, with some held off until weeks before launch, and when it came time to flip the switch, no one knew if it would work. “CMS launched Healthcare.gov without verification that it met performance requirements.”
But don’t think all the problems are in the past:
CMS Deputy Administrator Andy Slavitt said this morning that “there will clearly be bumps” when the exchanges open for all business again in November, according to a report in Politico.
Slavitt also confirmed that the exchange still isn’t built yet, with key backend payment systems that have already been delayed multiple times still incomplete. Slavitt said that the administration doesn’t expect work to be finished on those systems until next year—after the second open enrollment period is over.
[Reason, July 31]
• Assess how the legal challenges to ObamaCare’s subsidies and mandates will unfold now that two federal courts have issued contrary rulings. The Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon and Case Western Reserve University’s Jonathan Adler—the guys who noticed that ObamaCare doesn’t allow subsidies in
federal exchanges—will discuss the Halbig and King decisions. The discussion will begin at noon on August 12 in Room B-354 of the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, D.C.
• Experience one young man’s harrowing journey to secure his life and liberty in a repressive future society. The Heritage Foundation will host a private advance screening of The Giver, starring Jeff Bridges and Meryl Streep, at 7:00 p.m. on August 12. To attend, RSVP to firstname.lastname@example.org.
• Shoot guns, eat BBQ, and smoke cigars. The second annual Northwest Freedom Shootout is a fun afternoon event where you’ll meet other fans of the Second Amendment. The Shootout will begin at noon on August 16, at the Evergreen Sportsmen’s Club in Littlerock, Wash.
• Make your own declaration for Think Freely Media’s Great Communicators Tournament. Shoot a video in which you describe a policy issue using moral arguments to support a free enterprise or limited government. Submit it by August 15. The prize for first place is $10,000!
• Get an update on the right-to-work movement. The Heritage Foundation will host a panel featuring two teachers and a home healthcare provider grappling with union power in California, Michigan, and Minnesota. The event will begin at noon on August 12.
• Save the dates: Americans for Prosperity’s 8th Annual Defending the American Dream Summit will take place on August 29 at the Omni Dallas Hotel. The Mont Pelerin Society will meet August 31 at the Kowloon Shangri-La Hong Kong Hotel to discuss the future prospects for liberal reform in Asia.
Posted June 2, 2012on:
- In: Barack Obama | Communism in America | Economy/Money | Federal Reserve | Greece collapsing under debt | Ineffective Government Programs | International News | Know the enemies of America | Move back to Conservatism | Obama admistration | Obama and ethics | Politics 2012 | Progressives Movement to Destroy America | Project to Restore America | Radical Left at War with America | Redistributing wealth | Subverting America by Uri Bezmenov
- Leave a Comment
Here are some very good articles from Project to Restore America that I thought you might want to read. I would especially point out the three articles :
|Warning: Three signs point to an extreme development in gold and crude oil|
|“The groundwork is being laid for major events… I would recommend protecting yourself accordingly…”
in light of what happened this past week. FOX BUSINESS NEWS had several guest commentators and economist this past Thursday and Friday who were adamant that a big fall into another recession (depression really!) is coming and coming very soon. These articles seem to echo what they were predicting.
The first article features is by John Stossel. John is a Libertarian and in many ways I lean in that direction because what he says just plain makes sense. He is on a tour promoting his newest book “No they Can’t” about the failure of government programs and on the tour is visiting many colleges and universities. I was gratified to see that several colleges are actually using Stossel’s TV broadcast in teaching economic truths. Unfortunately these are small colleges and universities with down to earth people and not the big liberal/progressive communist control schools we hear so much about. I went to one of these small down to earth colleges thank goodness, but when I began teaching i was swamped by those who had been indoctrinated. BB
Keeping Business Honest
By John Stossel
Friday, June 01, 2012
Instinctively, we look for people’s motives. We need to know whom we can trust and whom we can’t. We’re especially skeptical of business because we know business wants our money.
It took me too long to understand that business’s desire for profit is a good thing. To get our money, businesses — if they can’t look to the government for favors — need to give us what we want. Then they must make continuous improvements and do it better than the competition does.
That competition is enough to protect consumers. But that’s not intuitive. It’s intuitive to assume that competition isn’t really consumer protection and that experts at the FDA, FTC, DEA, FCC, CPSC, OSHA and so on must protect us. These experts consult “responsible” businessmen for advice on creating rules to make sure businesses meets minimum “standards.”
Unfortunately, this standardization stops innovation.
We are imprinted to be wary of newcomers, strangers. Newcomers by definition are less experienced. Maybe they’ll do something unsafe or dishonest! We don’t want government to stop them from doing business — we just want consumers protected! Governments claim to do that by licensing businesses.
People like the idea of licensing. We license drivers. We license dogs. It seems prudent. People naively think this government seal of approval makes us safer.
This naiveté is used to justify all sorts of rules that kill competition.
Las Vegas regulators require anyone who wants to start a limousine business to prove his new business is needed and, worse, will not “adversely affect other carriers.” But every new business intends to beat its competitors. That’s the point. Competition is good for us. Las Vegas’ anticompetitive licensing rules mean limo customers pay more.
In Nashville, Tenn., regulators ruled it illegal for a limo to charge less than $45 a ride. One entrepreneur had won customers by charging half that, but the new regulations mean the established car service businesses no longer have to worry about him.
Perhaps Nashville’s and Vegas’ regulators really believe “this is an area where the free market doesn’t work,” as the manager of the Nevada Transportation Services Authority put it. But it’s fishy that charging big fees for licenses just happens to be a very effective shakedown operation.
Vegas cab and limousine businesses give “substantial” donations to Vegas-area political candidates, according to the Las Vegas Sun.
Our big government has justified its existence (at least since the Progressive Era) by claiming it is a “countervailing influence” to corporate power — when it is, in fact, incestuously entwined with corporations.
The list of business activities that government insists on licensing, supposedly for our sake, includes hair braiders in Mississippi, wooden-casket makers and florists in Louisiana and even yoga instructors in Virginia.
Established businesses always try to use government to handcuff competition. When margarine was first developed, the dairy industry got Wisconsin legislators to pass a law making margarine illegal. Several states ruled that margarine was “deceptive,” since it might be mistaken for butter. Some required a bright pink dye be added to make margarine look different. An “oleomargarine bootlegger” was thrown in the U.S. Penitentiary at Leavenworth.
When supermarkets were invented, small grocers tried to ban them. “A&P will dominate the grocery business and destroy Main Street,” the grocers claimed. Minnesota legislators responded by passing a law that forbade supermarkets to put food “on sale.”
Established capitalists are often capitalism’s biggest enemies.
I used to believe that licensing doctors and lawyers protected consumers, but now I realize that licensing is always an expensive restraint of trade. It certainly hasn’t barred quacks and shysters.
Licensing is unnecessary. It creates a false sense of security, raises costs, stifles innovation and takes away consumer choice.
The irony is, these readers were using a strategy that doesn’t require you to buy a single stock, bond, or option upfront to make this money. How is this possible?
Click here for details.
I don’t deny that there is fraud in business. I won Emmys for exposing it. Fraud is one of three crimes that must be policed and punished for the market to function (theft and physical assault are the others). Once that’s done, however, as long as there is open competition, honesty pretty much takes care of itself.
Free competition — the striving for a good reputation — protects consumers better than government ever will.
John Stossel is host of “Stossel” on the Fox Business Network. He’s the author of “Give Me a Break” and of “Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity.” To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at http://www.johnstossel.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2012 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC. DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
Once again, thank you for sending us your e-mails. We can’t respond individually, but we read and consider all of them. Send your question, comment, or complaint email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org.
One of the never mentioned aspects of taxing the rich or those who are more successful at earning money is that by doing so you relinquish the foundational principles of equality under the law and our Constitution. Why should one person who earns a large sum be treated any differently than one who earns little? They are each only one person. To use the lame brained argument of the left. Taxing one man/woman more than another is unfair. – Peter
Heffern comment: This is a good point. The numbers from the Census Bureau show taxing individuals not only undermines the principles outlined in the Constitution, but also creates an entitlement culture. For instance, according to the first-quarter 2011 Census Bureau figures (the most recent data available), nearly half of all Americans live in a household getting a government check. Fifteen percent of Americans live in a household on food stamps. Twenty six percent of households have someone enrolled in Medicaid, two percent have someone getting unemployment benefits, sixteen percent have someone receiving Social Security benefits, and fifteen percent have someone enrolled in Medicare.
[I] believe income taxes, even a flat 20%, are immoral. It is why property taxes are immoral. It creates a system where those who achieve and earn more essentially get punished for having done so. I realize government service is nebulous, and that many people believe we should help those less fortunate, but that is always an individual choice. If you hire an accountant, such as I, you will request a fee for service. That fee will be fairly close to the same fee for the same service that anyone else would try to negotiate for my services. That’s how the market works: Same thing at the grocery store where you pay the same amount for a loaf of bread as do I. Nobody cares how much you make. You and I the customers compete for those loaves of bread and pay a price commensurate with the store’s ability to supply the bread. – Jeff
Bidwell comment: Jeff, I understand your argument. However, according to the Constitution, the U.S. government is also supposed to provide infrastructure and national security. Mind you, national security should be more intelligence-focused than on creating bureaucratic departments like the Department for Homeland Security.
Our infrastructure needs to continue to evolve in these modern times, so I support some taxes even though none would be really nice. Consider a current situation… Americans for Prosperity is putting pressure on lawmakers in the form of a phone campaign to tell elected officials to oppose tax increases to pay for the new Silver Line. I agree there should be no tax increases for this train that would connect Washington, D.C. to Dulles International Airport, which is probably much-needed. However, if everyone kept 80% of their income, we should be able to invest in new trains like this. This demonstrates that our government uses Americans’ tax dollars to focus on initiatives outside what the government was intended to focus on while ignoring what it should handle.
Why Scott Rasmussen is optimistic the political class will surrender… By Wendy Bidwell Thursday, May 31, 2012 “I think the situation we’re in today was brought about because a political class pursued their own agenda. They ignored voters, they misled voters, they have understated the deficit.” — Scott Rasmussen Political Responsibility and the Public Loss of Confidence in the Government By Takashi Shiraishi Wednesday, May 30, 2012 The revolt of the regions and the formation of new national political groupings are important developments for Japanese politics. But they will not bring about an immediate restoration of popular confidence in the political system. The only way to restore confidence is for the government to produce results. Can we solve this with more freedom? By Penn Jillette Friday, May 25, 2012 It is important to “tell the truth as you see it.” What do I believe, what is in my heart? Only when you are open to new information are you able to then open other people’s eyes to the real issues. Oklahomans Embrace Income-Tax Cuts, Spending Cuts By Pat McFerron Thursday, May 24, 2012 Overall, a slight majority of Oklahomans favor a 10-year phaseout (51 percent favor vs. 30 percent oppose). Why Would an Obstetrician from Oklahoma Run for Senate? Tom Coburn Explains… By Wendy Bidwell Wednesday, May 23, 2012 John Adams warned that democracies never last long. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide. So how do we cheat history so that we don’t go in the dustbin of history of other democracies as we wander away from this wonderful freedom we’ve been given? Or diminish it… And with that, diminish our opportunity.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012 Warning: Three signs point to an extreme development in gold and crude oil “The groundwork is being laid for major events… I would recommend protecting yourself accordingly…” Friday, May 25, 2012 MUST-READ: The biggest Federal Reserve “money printing” in history could be coming soon “The Fed has been playing a very, very dangerous game…” Thursday, May 31, 2012 Jim Rogers: Coming U.S. “fiscal cliff” is “very, very dire” “I assure you the economy is going to slow down and slow down a lot…” Thursday, May 31, 2012 DISGUSTING: This outrageous story on Greece and the euro crisis left us speechless You may want to sit down before reading… Wednesday, May 30, 2012 Gold could be on the verge of a “waterfall event” The next big move in gold could soon begin…
Posted May 10, 2012on:
How many times must the fact that lowering taxes and allowing people to decide how and where to spend their money actually grows the economy? Here is another country that has come thru the current mess the world is in by lowering taxes. Will we never learn!!? BB
MUST-READ: Incredible evidence the U.S. and Europe are making a horrible mistake Wednesday, May 09, 2012
Text Size:From Carpe Diem:
From the U.K. Spectator’s report on the amazing success of supply-side economics in Sweden and finance minister Anders Borg, the man behind it:
“When Europe’s finance ministers meet for a group photo, it’s easy to spot the rebel — Anders Borg has a ponytail and earring. What actually marks him out, though, is how he responded to the crash. While most countries in Europe borrowed massively, Borg did not. Since becoming Sweden’s finance minister, his mission has been to pare back government. His ‘stimulus’ was a permanent tax cut. To critics, this was fiscal lunacy. Borg, on the other hand, thought lunacy meant repeating the economics of the 1970s and expecting a different result.
Three years on, it’s pretty clear who was right. “Look at Spain, Portugal, or the UK, whose governments were arguing for large temporary stimulus,” he says. “Well, we can see that very little of the stimulus went to the economy. But they are stuck with the debt.” Tax-cutting Sweden, by contrast, had the fastest growth in Europe last year, when it also celebrated the abolition of its deficit. The recovery started just in time for the 2010 Swedish election, in which the Conservatives were re-elected for the first time in history.
All this has taken Borg from curiosity to celebrity. The Financial Times recently declared him the most effective finance minister in Europe.
“Everybody was told ‘stimulus, stimulus, stimulus’,” he says — referring to the EU, IMF, and the alphabet soup of agencies urging a global, debt-fueled spending splurge. Borg, an economist, couldn’t work out how this would help. “It was surprising that Europe, given what we experienced in the 1970s and ’80s with structural unemployment, believed that short-term Keynesianism could solve the problem.” Non-economists, he says, “might have a tendency to fall for those kinds of messages.”
He continued to cut taxes and cut welfare-spending to pay for it. He even cut property taxes for the rich to lure entrepreneurs back to Sweden. The last bit was the most unpopular, but for Borg, economic recovery starts with…
Read full article…
More on taxes and the economy:
Posted March 5, 2012on:
- In: Constitution of the United States of America | CPAC 2012 Conservative America | Greece collapsing under debt | Know the enemies of America | Move back to Conservatism | National Politics | patriotism | Politics 2012 | Project to Restore America | Regaining our moral standards | Repuiblican Presidential Candidates | The Fight Back | US in Revolt | Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker
- Leave a Comment
- We all need to listen to Daniel Hanna’s speech to Americans at CPAC 2012. It is a warning to us to stop our slide towards European-ism, which is slavery and dehumanizing people. I personally love to listen to Hanna and have even read a few of his books. I also tossed in a few videos of others who spoke that weekend. You might also want to listen to the one true ‘Fighting Conservative’ Andrew Breithart. His voice has been silenced by death but we still have his past words and deeds to inspire us to carry on the fight he was so very dedicated to. Enjoy BB
- 27:27 Full Speech: Daniel Hannan at CPAC 2012by rightscoop79,164 views
- Full Speech: Sarah Palin at CPAC 2012by rightscoop164,459 views
- 35:29 Full Speech: Governor Scott Walker at CPAC 2012by rightscoop7,949
- In: Communism in America | Constitution of the United States of America | Economy/Money | Health Care | Know the enemies of America | Laws and Regulation--stupidities | laws and regulations--stupidities | laws and regulations--stupidities | Move back to Conservatism | Obama admistration | Obama and ethics | Obamanation | Politics 2009 | Politics 2010 | Politics 2011 | Progressives Movement to Destroy America | Radical Left at War with America | Regaining our moral standards | Republican House of Representatives 2011 | Republican House of Representatives 2011 | SEIU Service Employees International Union | Subverting America by Uri Bezmenov | Taxes | The Fight Back | US in Revolt
- 1 Comment
People this is the time to keep pressure on your members in the House of Representatives as they are they only ones who may be able to check Obama and the Senate some from taking more and more corrosive actions against us.
If the following bill is passed “the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to set it’s own fees and spend the revenue collected from those fees. Currently, Congress sets the fees and appropriates funds for the USPTO.” This would then set the precedent for all departments and agencies to set their own rules and fees and collect in essence their own taxes and funding! We would have mini federal governments within the huge federal government and absolutely NO WAY TO STOP these non-elected creatures from ruling over us. They could do anything they want in our name. So get on the horn and make your congressman know who you are and how you feel and then get in touch with him often. You might also remember that now just about all government workers are members of unions!!! The creatures in the tiny offices while watching dirty internet sites will just calmly and faithfully follow the instructions of union leaders like Trumpka and Andy Stern. You might recall that Andy Stern was the most frequent visitor to Obama’s White House and Trumpka proudly boasted that he talked to the White House on a daily basis. Keep all these interlocking facts in mind and you will understand just how infiltrated our government is and how much at risk our nation and our American way of life and freedoms are.
It is always wise to click on any referred sites or articles (BLUE) to learn more about an issue. BB
Action Alert: Patent Reform No Small Issue
Congress passes numerous bills every year that receive little, if any, media coverage. These “small ball” issues often contain pork spending or, in this case, a complete a transfer of power from Congress to unelected bureaucrats.
This bill would allow the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to set it’s own fees and spend the revenue collected from those fees. Currently, Congress sets the fees and appropriates funds for the USPTO.
This framework of checks and balances is crucial.
Congress must maintain the ability to conduct oversight and hold government agencies accountable. Transferring the power from Congress empowers the USPTO and makes oversight and accountability on the important issue of patent issuance more difficult.
Government efficiency should not come at the expense empowering bureaucrats and undermining the ability of elected Representatives to keep executive branch power in check.
- In: Climategate | Communism in America | Environment | EPA Environmental Protection Agency | Ineffective Government Programs | International News | Know the enemies of America | laws and regulations--stupidities | LOST Law of the Seas Treaty | Move back to Conservatism | Obamanation | Politics 2008 | Politics 2009 | Politics 2010 | Politics 2011 | Progressives Movement to Destroy America | Radical Left at War with America | Redistributing wealth | Subverting America by Uri Bezmenov | United Nations
- Leave a Comment
A guest to my site brought this You Tube video to my attention and it is well worth watching. It explains very well the “green” environmental movement and all the scams surrounding this movement. The Public-Private developments that allowed GM not to pay any taxes this year is part of this.
Thank you goes to Tony N. BB