A WSJ editorial today is a perfect follow up to my post yesterday, It’s the Spending. The Journal piece is about how Sweden, the sweetheart of socialist utopians, is cutting taxes to help it’s economy.
The editorial quotes a headline from Agence France-Presse as follows:
“Sweden Announces Income Tax Cuts to Boost Jobs.” They are cutting business taxes, personal income and payroll taxes.
Jan Bjorklund, leader of the Liberal Party said, “The corporate tax is one of the taxes which large companies really study when they plan to set up business somewhere.” Really? The Swedish corporate tax rate will come down to 26.3%, 1/3 lower than the US when combining both state and federal. As stated here before, the US has the second highest corporate income tax in the industrialized world.
Why are they doing this? To compete with Eastern Europe, Asia and Ireland,
which, since lowering its corporate tax rate, currently 12.5%, has seen its economy explode. And to spur entrepreneurialism: only two of Sweden’s 50 largest companies was founded after 1970, while more than half were started
before WW1.
And three years ago, Sweden abolished its inheritance tax.
Could it be that we are about to head down the road that Sweden has already discovered is a dead end?
Monday, September 29, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
It's the Spending
One important difference between the candidates in Friday’s debate was that McCain talked about cutting spending while Obama talked about who would be taxed to pay for his new programs.
But what really matters is how much the government is spending, not who pays the taxes, because ultimately everyone ends up paying. Government spending increases the price of everything we buy and reduces jobs and wage growth.
Businesses large and small must recoup all of their expenses if they are to remain viable. Businesses have to pass their taxes on to the consumer, just like rent, advertising, payroll, etc. It’s the same for your doctor, dentist, lawyer, you name it. The government uses the corporation, business owner or professional as the tax collector or conduit, but we all end up paying.
Regarding jobs and wages, Nobel laureate and economist Milton Friedman taught that every dollar that government spends is a dollar that can not be invested in the private sector to create jobs and increase productivity. Part of this is simple. A dollar paid in taxes can not also be used to pay an employee.
But it goes further. The reason Americans have a high standard of living compared to less developed countries is not because we are smarter or harder working. It is because we have a huge investment in knowledge, technology and machines that allows our workers to produce more per hour worked than workers in less developed countries. Our standard of living is a direct result of what we produce. Every dollar spent on government is a dollar that can not be invested in training, technology and more efficient machines to improve worker productivity. Lower productivity translates into lower incomes and living standards.
Oliver Wendell Holmes said taxes are the price we pay for civilization. Up to a point that is true. But excessive government spending hurts everyone with higher prices, fewer jobs and lower incomes. So forget about who is going to get taxed and focus on the spending.
But what really matters is how much the government is spending, not who pays the taxes, because ultimately everyone ends up paying. Government spending increases the price of everything we buy and reduces jobs and wage growth.
Businesses large and small must recoup all of their expenses if they are to remain viable. Businesses have to pass their taxes on to the consumer, just like rent, advertising, payroll, etc. It’s the same for your doctor, dentist, lawyer, you name it. The government uses the corporation, business owner or professional as the tax collector or conduit, but we all end up paying.
Regarding jobs and wages, Nobel laureate and economist Milton Friedman taught that every dollar that government spends is a dollar that can not be invested in the private sector to create jobs and increase productivity. Part of this is simple. A dollar paid in taxes can not also be used to pay an employee.
But it goes further. The reason Americans have a high standard of living compared to less developed countries is not because we are smarter or harder working. It is because we have a huge investment in knowledge, technology and machines that allows our workers to produce more per hour worked than workers in less developed countries. Our standard of living is a direct result of what we produce. Every dollar spent on government is a dollar that can not be invested in training, technology and more efficient machines to improve worker productivity. Lower productivity translates into lower incomes and living standards.
Oliver Wendell Holmes said taxes are the price we pay for civilization. Up to a point that is true. But excessive government spending hurts everyone with higher prices, fewer jobs and lower incomes. So forget about who is going to get taxed and focus on the spending.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Pointing the Finger
We all know that in an election year it’s standard practice to blame the current occupant of The White House for all the Country’s ills. The financial mess is no exception. We hear much about Bush and McCain being responsible because of their support of deregulation.
But, as one of those occupants, John Adams, said, facts are stubborn things.
And those facts refute the afore-mentioned accusations and, in fact, demand that the fingers should be pointing at some Democrats.
There is no one cause of the current situation, but, as the principal players in the mortgage market, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are clearly at the heart of the problem. With encouragement from Democrats in Congress, F&F executives repeatedly lowered lending standards, enriching themselves and their shareholders while hiding behind the mantra of helping more people achieve the American dream.
As early as 2001, President Bush in his first budget message started warning of the potential problems at Fannie & Freddie. Later, on September 11, 2003, The New York Times reported, “The Bush Administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.” The proposal called for a new regulatory agency to supervise F&F.
In 2005, Senator McCain sponsored legislation to reform Fannie and Freddie. On the Senate floor, McCain argued, “If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to…enormous risk…”
What happened to these efforts by Bush and McCain to rein in these out-of-control behemoths? Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, heads of the two Congressional committees responsible for over-seeing F&F, with an assist from Chuck Schumer, blocked every attempt at reform. Sen. Frank’s confidently asserted that F&F “…are not facing any kind of financial crisis.”
Campaign contributions and sweetheart loans spoke louder than Republican danger warnings and proposed reform legislation.
But, as one of those occupants, John Adams, said, facts are stubborn things.
And those facts refute the afore-mentioned accusations and, in fact, demand that the fingers should be pointing at some Democrats.
There is no one cause of the current situation, but, as the principal players in the mortgage market, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are clearly at the heart of the problem. With encouragement from Democrats in Congress, F&F executives repeatedly lowered lending standards, enriching themselves and their shareholders while hiding behind the mantra of helping more people achieve the American dream.
As early as 2001, President Bush in his first budget message started warning of the potential problems at Fannie & Freddie. Later, on September 11, 2003, The New York Times reported, “The Bush Administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.” The proposal called for a new regulatory agency to supervise F&F.
In 2005, Senator McCain sponsored legislation to reform Fannie and Freddie. On the Senate floor, McCain argued, “If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to…enormous risk…”
What happened to these efforts by Bush and McCain to rein in these out-of-control behemoths? Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, heads of the two Congressional committees responsible for over-seeing F&F, with an assist from Chuck Schumer, blocked every attempt at reform. Sen. Frank’s confidently asserted that F&F “…are not facing any kind of financial crisis.”
Campaign contributions and sweetheart loans spoke louder than Republican danger warnings and proposed reform legislation.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Fox Watching the Hen House
Listening to the Senate Banking Committee, chaired by Sen. Chris Dodd (D), grilling Paulson and Bernanke Tuesday about the financial bailout evoked the hubris and arrogance of Congress.
The panel, appropriately, expressed their deep concern that “the taxpayer will be on the hook” for $700 billion. A legitimate concern, for sure. But, where was their concern when they put the taxpayer on the hook for several trillion dollars for Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac?
Fannie & Freddie are the financial Frankensteins of Congress, quasi-private companies whose debts were implicitly (now explicitly) guaranteed by the Government, in other words, “the taxpayers,” while its stockholders and officers raked in the money. Now they have been nationalized and the taxpayers are indeed on the hook for trillions.
The kicker here is that since 1989, the #1 recipient of contributions from Fannie and Freddie is none other than Sen. Dodd, chairman of the Senate committee responsible for overseeing these entities. Dodd’s total take – over $133,000.
How’s this for a reform idea: members of Congress may not accept contributions from persons or entities whose oversight falls under a committee on which that member sits?
The panel, appropriately, expressed their deep concern that “the taxpayer will be on the hook” for $700 billion. A legitimate concern, for sure. But, where was their concern when they put the taxpayer on the hook for several trillion dollars for Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac?
Fannie & Freddie are the financial Frankensteins of Congress, quasi-private companies whose debts were implicitly (now explicitly) guaranteed by the Government, in other words, “the taxpayers,” while its stockholders and officers raked in the money. Now they have been nationalized and the taxpayers are indeed on the hook for trillions.
The kicker here is that since 1989, the #1 recipient of contributions from Fannie and Freddie is none other than Sen. Dodd, chairman of the Senate committee responsible for overseeing these entities. Dodd’s total take – over $133,000.
How’s this for a reform idea: members of Congress may not accept contributions from persons or entities whose oversight falls under a committee on which that member sits?
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Income, taxes & the economy
A recent WSJ article by Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore, based on the latest income and poverty data from the US Census Bureau, refutes the claim
by the Obama camp that only the rich have benefited from the economic policies started by Reagan.
“When all sources of income are included…and taxes paid are deducted,” they report, “households in the lowest income quintile saw a roughly 25% increase in their living standards from 1983 to 2005.” And, since the average number of people per household has declined, these figures understate how well individuals in this group have done. (These numbers are based on real income, which means they are inflation-adjusted to reflect changes in purchasing power.)
Laffer and Moore also address the subject of income mobility. We often hear about “the poor” as if they are the same individuals every year. But 2/3rds of those in the lowest tax bracket in 1987 had moved up to higher brackets ten years later. Many of the poor are people who have recently entered the work force or have retired. If your home and car are paid for, you can live comfortably on an income that qualifies you as poor under government guidelines. In fact, the Census Bureau data shows that only 3% are chronically poor, meaning in poverty for three years or more.
One advantage of our Federal system is that we can learn from seeing how different policies in different states yield different results. This can instruct us on what policies should be pursued on a National level. Another WSJ article, this one by Phil Gramm and Mike Solon, examined the latest Competitive Index issued by the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Quoting from the report, “generally speaking, states that spend less, especially on income transfer programs, and states that tax less, particularly on productive activities such as working and investing, experience higher (economic) growth rates than states that tax and spend more.” Imagine that!
The three most successful states between 1996 and 2006, Texas, Florida and Arizona, gained 3.7 million new jobs while the three least successful, Illinois, Ohio and Michigan, lost 250,000 jobs. Also, real per capita income growth in the top group was almost double that of the lowest. It’s interesting to note that the top 3 are all “right-to-work” states, while none of the lowest 3 are. Finally, the laggards all have significantly higher minimum wage laws.
This analysis is important to consider when listening to the policies espoused
by the candidates. Results speak louder than populist pandering.
by the Obama camp that only the rich have benefited from the economic policies started by Reagan.
“When all sources of income are included…and taxes paid are deducted,” they report, “households in the lowest income quintile saw a roughly 25% increase in their living standards from 1983 to 2005.” And, since the average number of people per household has declined, these figures understate how well individuals in this group have done. (These numbers are based on real income, which means they are inflation-adjusted to reflect changes in purchasing power.)
Laffer and Moore also address the subject of income mobility. We often hear about “the poor” as if they are the same individuals every year. But 2/3rds of those in the lowest tax bracket in 1987 had moved up to higher brackets ten years later. Many of the poor are people who have recently entered the work force or have retired. If your home and car are paid for, you can live comfortably on an income that qualifies you as poor under government guidelines. In fact, the Census Bureau data shows that only 3% are chronically poor, meaning in poverty for three years or more.
One advantage of our Federal system is that we can learn from seeing how different policies in different states yield different results. This can instruct us on what policies should be pursued on a National level. Another WSJ article, this one by Phil Gramm and Mike Solon, examined the latest Competitive Index issued by the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Quoting from the report, “generally speaking, states that spend less, especially on income transfer programs, and states that tax less, particularly on productive activities such as working and investing, experience higher (economic) growth rates than states that tax and spend more.” Imagine that!
The three most successful states between 1996 and 2006, Texas, Florida and Arizona, gained 3.7 million new jobs while the three least successful, Illinois, Ohio and Michigan, lost 250,000 jobs. Also, real per capita income growth in the top group was almost double that of the lowest. It’s interesting to note that the top 3 are all “right-to-work” states, while none of the lowest 3 are. Finally, the laggards all have significantly higher minimum wage laws.
This analysis is important to consider when listening to the policies espoused
by the candidates. Results speak louder than populist pandering.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Government "bailout"
A Rasmussen poll 2 days ago showed that only 7% of people, regardless of political affiliation, supported a government bailout of financial institutions. I think support is so low because the term 'bailout' is so vague and people may not understand the consequences of doing nothing.
These government actions are not gifts to stockholders. The stockholders of Fanny Mae & Freddy Mac were wiped out. Take the most recent case of AIG. This is a solvent company with a temporary cash flow problem, mostly caused by greedy short-sellers. But stockholders were forced to give up 79.9% of the equity. There is a good chance that the taxpayers will end up making money on the deal.
As for the plan now being worked out for the government to buy shaky debt from financial institutions, these assets will be purchased by the government entity at large discounts, as little as 30 cents on the dollar. Not all of these loans will go bad. And they are all backed by houses, which are worth something. Again, the taxpayers could make money on the deal.
Clearly the debt crisis was on the verge of becoming a full-scale panic. If the government had not stepped in, this likely would have spread to the overall economy and very possibly resulted in a worldwide depression.
So how did we get here? I don't have all the answers, but there is plenty of blame to go around.The Greenspan Fed keeping rates too low (1%) for too long: Congress' cozy relationship with and lax oversight of Fanny & Freddy: greedy lenders and stupid homebuyers: securitization of loans, in which the banks/brokers making the loans made their money up front and then sold them, mostly to Fanny/Freddie, which sliced them up & sold them in packages to yield-hungry investors: the SEC's permitting naked short-selling of stocks.
The important thing is that we can be thankful this weekend that we have probably narrowly missed a disaster.
These government actions are not gifts to stockholders. The stockholders of Fanny Mae & Freddy Mac were wiped out. Take the most recent case of AIG. This is a solvent company with a temporary cash flow problem, mostly caused by greedy short-sellers. But stockholders were forced to give up 79.9% of the equity. There is a good chance that the taxpayers will end up making money on the deal.
As for the plan now being worked out for the government to buy shaky debt from financial institutions, these assets will be purchased by the government entity at large discounts, as little as 30 cents on the dollar. Not all of these loans will go bad. And they are all backed by houses, which are worth something. Again, the taxpayers could make money on the deal.
Clearly the debt crisis was on the verge of becoming a full-scale panic. If the government had not stepped in, this likely would have spread to the overall economy and very possibly resulted in a worldwide depression.
So how did we get here? I don't have all the answers, but there is plenty of blame to go around.The Greenspan Fed keeping rates too low (1%) for too long: Congress' cozy relationship with and lax oversight of Fanny & Freddy: greedy lenders and stupid homebuyers: securitization of loans, in which the banks/brokers making the loans made their money up front and then sold them, mostly to Fanny/Freddie, which sliced them up & sold them in packages to yield-hungry investors: the SEC's permitting naked short-selling of stocks.
The important thing is that we can be thankful this weekend that we have probably narrowly missed a disaster.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
More intellectual elitism
Syndicated columnist Clarence Page had a piece in today's Rocky Mountain News in which he recommends that the Dems "dumb it down." He says he doesn't need to give this advice to Reps because "They've been dumbing it down for years." Then he drags out the old smear from Democratic lobbyist and insider, Clark Clifford, that Reagan was an "amiable dunce." Of course he forgot to mention Clifford's indictment on bank fraud charges that his political friends got dismissed because of his "failing health." Never mind.
Page says it's not that Dems don't share ordinary peoples' values. It's just that they "have a hard time expressing" them. Wrong, Clarence. The people have understood Democrat values and have rejected them. That's why there has been only one two-term Dem President since FDR.
He says the reason Gov. Palin was able to finesse Charles Gibson's question about "The Bush Doctrine" even though "She obviously didn't know much about what Gibson was talking about" is that she just gave a "boilerplate version of Bush's foreign policy...We got to get them terrorists." (Page's words, not Palin's.)
He opines, "That's the kind of answer voters tend to like. Short and strong." This is another example of the intellectual snobbery of liberal elites. What he is really saying is that Democrats need to talk down to the voters because the poor things are just not smart enough to understand these complex matters. Voters are smarter than Page and his ilk think. And they don't like being the objects of liberal condescension.
Page says it's not that Dems don't share ordinary peoples' values. It's just that they "have a hard time expressing" them. Wrong, Clarence. The people have understood Democrat values and have rejected them. That's why there has been only one two-term Dem President since FDR.
He says the reason Gov. Palin was able to finesse Charles Gibson's question about "The Bush Doctrine" even though "She obviously didn't know much about what Gibson was talking about" is that she just gave a "boilerplate version of Bush's foreign policy...We got to get them terrorists." (Page's words, not Palin's.)
He opines, "That's the kind of answer voters tend to like. Short and strong." This is another example of the intellectual snobbery of liberal elites. What he is really saying is that Democrats need to talk down to the voters because the poor things are just not smart enough to understand these complex matters. Voters are smarter than Page and his ilk think. And they don't like being the objects of liberal condescension.
Monday, September 15, 2008
This morning I watched on TV Sarah Palin deliver a speech before a crowd of 5,000 at the Jefferson County Fairgrounds. At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, I must say it was electrifying, flawless and she connects with people like no politician I've ever seen. Joe Biden, fasten your seatbelt - you're about to experience some turbulence.
The Republican ticket has found a resonant issue in "reform," and Palin has the track record to make it credible. Before being Governor, while chairing the Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, she learned of several instances of unethical conduct of another Commission member. She brought the matter to the attention of the Governor's office and the offending member was eventually forced to pay a $12,000 fine. What makes this story relevant is the fact that the perp was Chairman of the State Republican Party. That is putting principle before personal ambition, something rarely observed in the political cesspool.
Last night someone near and dear to me was advancing the argument that we should be concerned about what people in other countries think about our elected leaders. This I take is meant to favor Obama, since he was the favorite in all 22 countries surveyed, a total of 23,531 people, per the BBC. This might be relevant if he were running for Secretary General of the UN.
But, consider also, as Bret Stephens points out in a Friday WSJ piece, that in another poll, by WorldPublicOpinion.org., in 8 of the 19 countries surveyed a majority did not believe that al-Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Even in Britain only 56% blamed al-Qaeda and 23% of Germans actually blame the US government.
Now that they think the Cold War is over (it's not) and that, therefore, they don't need us to defend them while they're on their 6 week holidays, many Europeans and others feel free to give vent to the envy that animates their anti-Americanism.
We'll choose our own leaders, thank you.
The Republican ticket has found a resonant issue in "reform," and Palin has the track record to make it credible. Before being Governor, while chairing the Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, she learned of several instances of unethical conduct of another Commission member. She brought the matter to the attention of the Governor's office and the offending member was eventually forced to pay a $12,000 fine. What makes this story relevant is the fact that the perp was Chairman of the State Republican Party. That is putting principle before personal ambition, something rarely observed in the political cesspool.
Last night someone near and dear to me was advancing the argument that we should be concerned about what people in other countries think about our elected leaders. This I take is meant to favor Obama, since he was the favorite in all 22 countries surveyed, a total of 23,531 people, per the BBC. This might be relevant if he were running for Secretary General of the UN.
But, consider also, as Bret Stephens points out in a Friday WSJ piece, that in another poll, by WorldPublicOpinion.org., in 8 of the 19 countries surveyed a majority did not believe that al-Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Even in Britain only 56% blamed al-Qaeda and 23% of Germans actually blame the US government.
Now that they think the Cold War is over (it's not) and that, therefore, they don't need us to defend them while they're on their 6 week holidays, many Europeans and others feel free to give vent to the envy that animates their anti-Americanism.
We'll choose our own leaders, thank you.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
The NY Times, which long ago surrendered what claim it had to being an objective newspaper, has reported that Gov. Palin gave jobs to friends and that her assistant chided an anti-Palin blogger. In the words of another Louie, he of Casablanca fame, I'm shocked, shocked! Whoever heard of a politician appointing friends and supporters to government jobs? Both Carter and the Clintons dragged their entourage of yokels with them to Washington. And where was the Times when the Clintons were not just attacking, but destroying, their critics? Harry Truman was commended, appropriately, for threatening to punch a critic who panned, appropriately, his daughter's singing. For another example of how Palinphobia is causing liberal elites to expose their true characters, read on.
University of Colorado Professor Julian Friedland unmasked the intellectual snobbery and condescenion of liberal elites in a Boulder Daily Camera guest commentary by informing us rubes that Palin's biggest weakness is not her inexperience, but, rather, that she is not an intellectual. You see, unlike What's-his-name, who went to Columbia and Harvard, she was graduated from (picture the smirk covered by 3 fingers on the lips) the University of Idaho.
So, he says, experience is irrelevant "if one doesn't consider the vision and wisdom that comes
(sic) from knowledge itself, i.e., of history, law, geography, philosophy, science, etc." Since the admonition to stop digging when you're already in a hole is not found in the classics, he continues his self-interment by asserting that, in spite of her "thin resume," she would still be an "acceptable candidate" if "she were known as a brilliant mind." You know, like Joe Biden.
This pompous bag of wind assumes the prerogative to judge someone elses knowledge and wisdom based on where she went to college and what degrees she has. The reason he does not realize how this article reveals his breathtaking arrogance is that most of the people in his world think the same way.
This is getting long, so I'll save the rest for later.
University of Colorado Professor Julian Friedland unmasked the intellectual snobbery and condescenion of liberal elites in a Boulder Daily Camera guest commentary by informing us rubes that Palin's biggest weakness is not her inexperience, but, rather, that she is not an intellectual. You see, unlike What's-his-name, who went to Columbia and Harvard, she was graduated from (picture the smirk covered by 3 fingers on the lips) the University of Idaho.
So, he says, experience is irrelevant "if one doesn't consider the vision and wisdom that comes
(sic) from knowledge itself, i.e., of history, law, geography, philosophy, science, etc." Since the admonition to stop digging when you're already in a hole is not found in the classics, he continues his self-interment by asserting that, in spite of her "thin resume," she would still be an "acceptable candidate" if "she were known as a brilliant mind." You know, like Joe Biden.
This pompous bag of wind assumes the prerogative to judge someone elses knowledge and wisdom based on where she went to college and what degrees she has. The reason he does not realize how this article reveals his breathtaking arrogance is that most of the people in his world think the same way.
This is getting long, so I'll save the rest for later.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Boulder
Boulder works hard at earning it's reputation as 13 square miles surrounded by reality. Prairie dogs are to The Peoples' Republic what cows are to India. But when those plague-spreading little rats leave private property and invade government land, nuff's enough. So the City is going to spend $388,500 to relocate or euthanize an estimated 800 of these rodents. That's $485 per varmint, because as many as possible will be relocated. The City has paid contractors as much as $374 per prairie dog to remove them. Eat you heart out, Berkeley.
But these are people who think animals are at least equal to humans. Longtime Boulder Democrat activist and Boulder Daily Camera editorial advisory board member, Anne Butterfield, takes issue with the strict, anti-abortion stand of Sarah Palin. (You knew it would come back to her somehow, didn't you?) After noting Palin's position on abortion, Butterfield cites Pope Benedict's opposition to capital punishment and Palin's support for managing wolf and bear populations by hunting, including shooting from aircraft.
If Palin has taken a position on capital punishment, I haven't heard about it. But I wouldn't be surprised if she supports it in appropriate cases. So? Why can't liberals distinguish between the life of an innocent, unborn child and that of a perpetrator of premeditated murder?
It gets worse. Butterfield has trouble seeing the difference between human beings and animals. She can't understand how someone can approve of hunting and be anti-abortion. She apparently subscribes to the soulless dictum of PETA's Ingrid Newkirk: "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." Sad and frightening.
But these are people who think animals are at least equal to humans. Longtime Boulder Democrat activist and Boulder Daily Camera editorial advisory board member, Anne Butterfield, takes issue with the strict, anti-abortion stand of Sarah Palin. (You knew it would come back to her somehow, didn't you?) After noting Palin's position on abortion, Butterfield cites Pope Benedict's opposition to capital punishment and Palin's support for managing wolf and bear populations by hunting, including shooting from aircraft.
If Palin has taken a position on capital punishment, I haven't heard about it. But I wouldn't be surprised if she supports it in appropriate cases. So? Why can't liberals distinguish between the life of an innocent, unborn child and that of a perpetrator of premeditated murder?
It gets worse. Butterfield has trouble seeing the difference between human beings and animals. She can't understand how someone can approve of hunting and be anti-abortion. She apparently subscribes to the soulless dictum of PETA's Ingrid Newkirk: "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." Sad and frightening.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Palin and more
The liberal feminists are pulling their hair out. They've been wanting a woman on the ticket since Geraldine and when one finally comes along, she's a gun-totting, moose-hunting, anti-abortion mother of five and, worst of all, a Republican. And she's the biggest sensation to hit American politics since what's-his-name. It's enough to make you burn your bra.
Speaking of What's-his-name, he keeps saying he's going to give a tax cut to 95% of Americans. Leaving aside the fact the the President doesn't have the power to give anyone a tax cut, it's hard to reconcile that promise with the fact that 38% of households paid zero income taxes in 2006 (latest IRS data available). What he really is putting forward is a plan to take money from taxpayers and give it to non-taxpayers. Of course, we already do this with the Earned Income Tax Credit.
He calls these income transfers Refundable Tax Credits, but what it amounts to is a $648 billion, 10 year welfare program. What he's really saying is, "I will use the power of government to do something you can't do legally: I will steal from your neighbor and give the money to you." This is what democracy comes to when you have 10% of the people paying 70% of the income tax and 50% paying 3%.
Speaking of What's-his-name, he keeps saying he's going to give a tax cut to 95% of Americans. Leaving aside the fact the the President doesn't have the power to give anyone a tax cut, it's hard to reconcile that promise with the fact that 38% of households paid zero income taxes in 2006 (latest IRS data available). What he really is putting forward is a plan to take money from taxpayers and give it to non-taxpayers. Of course, we already do this with the Earned Income Tax Credit.
He calls these income transfers Refundable Tax Credits, but what it amounts to is a $648 billion, 10 year welfare program. What he's really saying is, "I will use the power of government to do something you can't do legally: I will steal from your neighbor and give the money to you." This is what democracy comes to when you have 10% of the people paying 70% of the income tax and 50% paying 3%.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
AWOL in Santa Barbara
I'm in beautiful Santa Barbara this week for my wife's family reunion. Some relatives rented an ocean-view house on the Riviera directly above the Santa Barbara Bowl, where Willy Nelson will be performing tonight as we watch and listen from the deck. Not bad!
As the political season crawls through the final weeks, it is healthy that we visit two recent examples of the hypocracy that power breeds. First, the Democrats' "Greenest Convention in History" leaves behind in a pile 12,000 American flags to be trashed. Now Republicans may not yet have achieved a sufficient level of eco-awareness to win over the Sierra sorts, but we do know a great deal when we see one. So the flags will fly again, this time for McCain/Palin in Colorado Springs.
Then we learn that Charlie Rangel (D), who heads the powerful Ways and Means Committee, which, among other things reigns over the tax code, "forgot" to report rental income from property he owns in the Dominican Republic. He assures us it was just an oversight and, being the stand-up guy he is, blames his wife. (Reminds me of the tax audit advice Steve Martin once gave us: just tell the IRS agent, "IIIIII'm sorry, IIII forgot!")
Is this the kind of "change" we can expect more of? I think the "reform" message resonates better with voters.
As the political season crawls through the final weeks, it is healthy that we visit two recent examples of the hypocracy that power breeds. First, the Democrats' "Greenest Convention in History" leaves behind in a pile 12,000 American flags to be trashed. Now Republicans may not yet have achieved a sufficient level of eco-awareness to win over the Sierra sorts, but we do know a great deal when we see one. So the flags will fly again, this time for McCain/Palin in Colorado Springs.
Then we learn that Charlie Rangel (D), who heads the powerful Ways and Means Committee, which, among other things reigns over the tax code, "forgot" to report rental income from property he owns in the Dominican Republic. He assures us it was just an oversight and, being the stand-up guy he is, blames his wife. (Reminds me of the tax audit advice Steve Martin once gave us: just tell the IRS agent, "IIIIII'm sorry, IIII forgot!")
Is this the kind of "change" we can expect more of? I think the "reform" message resonates better with voters.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Impaling Palin
O the dilemma. How can the Democrats make points against Sarah Palin by throwing her 17 year old daughter to the wolves without alienating their own voters. After all, single Moms and their Moms are primarily a constituency of the the Dems. Obama declared the subject off limits, but, alas, the New York Times and Daily Kos didn't get the message in time.
The media frenzy over a private, family matter has served to remind voters of the stark contrast between the candidates on the subject of abortion. Sarah Palin encouraged her daughter's decision to carry the baby to term while Obama voted against providing medical care for babies who survive botched abortions.
Getting back to the real issues, Obama says he has gained the necessary experience to be President by running his own campaign. Since when do candidates run their own campaigns? Isn't that what Campaign Managers do? Then he compounds the deception by claiming that all Palin did was manage 50 people as Mayor, completely ignoring the fact that she has served as Governor of a state for 20 months.
And then there is the whining that Palin was not chosen because she was most qualified, but rather to win over those disaffected Hilary voters in swing states. Well, of course. VPs are always chosen for what they can bring to the ticket. But the Presidency is an executive position and when it comes to executive experience, Palin, who might have to take over for #1, beats Obama, who is running for #1.
The media frenzy over a private, family matter has served to remind voters of the stark contrast between the candidates on the subject of abortion. Sarah Palin encouraged her daughter's decision to carry the baby to term while Obama voted against providing medical care for babies who survive botched abortions.
Getting back to the real issues, Obama says he has gained the necessary experience to be President by running his own campaign. Since when do candidates run their own campaigns? Isn't that what Campaign Managers do? Then he compounds the deception by claiming that all Palin did was manage 50 people as Mayor, completely ignoring the fact that she has served as Governor of a state for 20 months.
And then there is the whining that Palin was not chosen because she was most qualified, but rather to win over those disaffected Hilary voters in swing states. Well, of course. VPs are always chosen for what they can bring to the ticket. But the Presidency is an executive position and when it comes to executive experience, Palin, who might have to take over for #1, beats Obama, who is running for #1.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)