Friday, July 29, 2011

Debt Limit Alone Won't Save AAA Credit Rating

Earlier this month, Standard and Poors (S & P, for those of you not familiar with the full name) stated that even if the United States increased it's debt limit there was still a strong chance that our credit would be downgraded.  The Drive-By Media isn't reporting it, but simply raising the debt limit will not save the nation from seeing our credit rating cut from AAA to AA.  It's up to the Conservative media on talk radio and we in the blogosphere to pass the word.

According to the liberal favorite Huffington Post,

Standard & Poor's warned earlier this month that there was a 50-50 chance of a downgrade, if Congress and President Obama failed to find a "credible solution to the rising U.S. government debt burden." S&P said it may cut the U.S. rating to AA within 90 days. Passing a $4 trillion agreement could prevent a downgrade, S&P said. (1)

Let me repeat:  a $4 Trillion spending cut COULD prevent the downgrade.  Inherent in that statement is the fact that cutting less than $4 Trillion over the next 10 years will mean we have a very good chance of losing our AAA rating, regardless of a debt limit increase.  If we simply STAY at our current spending levels as of 2011 which translates into $3.729 Trillion in spending, a $4 Trillion cut would mean cutting spending by a mere 11%.  It's not a bad start, but keep in mind we are already spending just under 30% more than we take in in revenue.

The bottom line here is our nation is continuing to spend about 19% more money than we have, as of the 2011 budget.  This is why our nation is in such trouble. No family could continue on that pace for years upon years without bankruptcy coming upon them within a few years.  Furthermore, how many people do you think would be granted a further credit cards if they had a current debt of about seven times their annual income?  What do you think that person's credit score would be?  Do you think that person will be in the 800s?  (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, a person's credit score is between 300-850.  The higher the score, the better your credit.  A person is considered to have good credit if their score is above 700, and your credit is increasingly higher as you get closer to 800.)

The reason we are facing this credit score crisis, if I may interpret the S & P statement, is not because we haven't obtained another credit card to be able to pay our bills with money we don't have.  It's because we have too much debt already, and now we're asking to borrow more money to pay for it.

That's why the S & P is predicting an excellent chance of a credit rating downgrade.  No American family with a debt to income ratio of 7:1 (for those of you from Palm Beach County, that means seven times more debt than annual income) would be given a loan or further credit.  We need to take real steps to get ourselves back within our means.  No accounting tricks, no games.  Just real spending cuts to get us to a balanced budget. 

(1) U.S. Credit Rating Downgrade Looking Likely Even If Debt Ceiling Deal Is Reached

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Obama Has No Plan, Just Liberal Rhetoric

The President keeps demanding more compromise from Republicans in this Debt Limit Debate, and yet he has still not submitted a plan.  Yet the Republican Party is called "the Party of No."  The GOP is the only side that has given a plan.  Obama said the big sounding number "$4 Trillion in cuts" without submitting a plan in writing.  The only plan Obama has is "raise the debt limit, do nothing else."  It's akin to giving a new credit card to a person whose credit score is in the 400s due to his running up debt and never cutting spending.

Obama keeps at the same lines that haven't convinced the American people to begin with: 

Blah blah blah millionaires and billionaires blah blah blah private jet owners blah blah blah pay their fair share blah blah blah balanced approach blah blah blah revenue increases blah blah blah Bush's fault blah.

I'm tired of it.  The American people are tired of it. Obama's approval rating has dropped in the last weeks, and also has seen an increase in the President's "strongly disapprove" numbers.  There is no solution from Obama proposed except for naming a big sounding number and threatening to veto anything that doesn't let him tax the rich more, even though those increases will not even dent the debt and will certainly delay businesses from hiring if not cost jobs.

The only proposal Obama put in writing was his proposed 2012 budget.  That was voted down in the Senate 0-97.  Not only did zero Republicans vote for it, neither did a single Democrat.  Nobody voted yes on it.  Not one.  That was Obama's only proposal.  The rest has been a the same recycled rhetoric I listed above.

Obama keeps calling for network television time to tell us the same recycled lines.  I for one am tired of it.  Here's the point, and there is no two ways about it:  We are out of money.  We cannot keep spending to this level.  Failure to take our medicine now will mean legitimately huge cuts in the future.  The choice is yours, Mr. President.  We can take one bitter pill now or a bottle later.  But sooner or later we're going to have to take our medicine and cut our spending.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Obama's Poll Numbers Keep Dropping in Debt Limit Debate

More bad news for President Obama in this Debt Limit debate:  His poll numbers are dropping.  In the latest series of Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll on Wednesday (1), Obama's job approval is down to 45% with likely voters.  It's stayed in that low to mid 40s place, by the way, for the past week or so. 

Further, and this is very important:  42% of Americans STRONGLY DISAPPROVE of the job Obama is doing.  That translates to mean that 42% of Americans will almost certainly not vote for Obama in 2012.  A further 11% somewhat disapprove of Obama's job performance.  Meanwhile, the total approval for Obama is only 45%.  You see what I'm saying here?  The number of people who are saying "I don't like anything Obama is doing" nearly matches the total number of people who think Obama's doing even a moderately okay job.

Do the math, friends.  This means that as much as 20% of the voting public can be persuaded to vote against Obama (depending on the day's fluctuations).  From this standpoint, we only need to persuade 1/3 of those people to vote Republican.  Just 1/3.  If half of those people vote Republican in 2012, Obama would lose 55% to 35%.  That's a nice victory. 

While we're at it, the two most reliable polls out there, Gallup (2) and Rasmussen (3), showed in July that a generic Republican beats Obama.  Gallup's poll of registered voters showed a Republican beating Obama 47% to 39%.  Rasmussen's poll of likely voters shows a Republican beating Obama 47% to 41%.  Obama keeps beating every candidate not named Romney in these polls, but those who are familiar with polls will tell you that this is a matter of the other Republican candidates not being well known by the public yet.  (Many people choose the known quantity over the unknown automatically.) 

Obama is losing support quickly. It's precisely what conservatives have been predicting for years now: Once Obama has a record. He cannot continue to speak in platitudes and claim a moral high ground that doesn't belong to him. The American public is becoming wise to Obama's game, and they don't want it.

(1) Rasmussen Obama Approval Index History

(2) Gallup: "Republican Candidate" Extends Lead vs. Obama to 47% to 39%

(3) Rasmussen Poll: Generic Presidential Ballot

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Default Not a Given without Debt Deal (Unless Obama Chooses)

 President Obama and the Democrats have gone to great lengths in the past few weeks to convince Americans that failure to increase the debt limit would be akin to the United States defaulting, or otherwise we would be unable to pay Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Unfortunately, by the numbers, this is a false statement.

The Bipartisan Policy Center has run the numbers (1) on the expected incoming revenues in August against our budgeted spending and it turns out no, we could indeed pay for those items using only the incoming revenues from taxes.

According to the BPC, we are expecting $172.4 Billion in tax receipts in August. With that money, there is sufficient money available to:

- Service Our Debts (That's pay them off as scheduled, for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL).
- Pay Social Security Benefits
- Fully Fund Medicare and Medicaid
- Fully Fund the Department of Homeland Security
- Fully Fund the Labor Department
- Fully Fund the Justice Department
- Fully Fund the General Services Administration
- Pay All Federal Employee Salaries and Benefits
- Maintain Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
- Pay Outstanding IRS Refunds
- Fully Fund Veterans Affairs
- Pay Active Duty Military
- Pay Uninsurance Benefits

Thanks to Bloomberg Government for it's calculator. (2)

Here's the point: We only need to default or for that matter fail to pay social security, or medicare, or medicaid, or soldiers, if President Obama chooses to spend the money we have on something else. In short, it is in the President's hand, and if you don't receive your social security check or if the military isn't paid, etc, it is because Barrack Obama didn't consider you a priority.


(1) Bipartisan Policy Center: Debt Limit Analysis

(2) Bloomberg Government - Bloomberg Government (budget calculator)

Monday, July 25, 2011

CNN Poll Shows 66% of Americans Support Cut, Cap and Balance

Yes, you read that right.  66% of Americans SUPPORT the Cut, Cap and Balance Plan, according to a poll done by CNN, of all orginizations.  (1)  The very same poll shows that 74% of Americans would support the passing of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution and 60% feel that a Balanced Budget Amendment is necessary for solving our deficit problem. (2)

Those of you who read this blog regularly will note that a) I generally distrust CNN Polls because of their liberal bias and b) I generally distrust polls of adults rather than of likely voters or registered voters.  You're correct in this knowledge (I've said before polls of adults are as useful as polling Martians and Kodiak bears), but considering the outcome of this poll, those factors make this poll even more compelling.  You see, when polls move from polling adults to polling registered voters, the polls trend more conservative.  When you move from registered voters to likely voters, the polls trend still conservative.  Furthermore, this poll being performed by a liberally biased news source is showing a strong trend toward the conservative Cut, Cap and Balance Plan and toward the Balanced Budget Amendment. 

One can assume based on typical polling trends that voters are more likely to support these policies than the general population of adults.  President Obama has spent the past weeks scolding Republicans to listen to the voters who elected them.  Now that this poll, coming from liberal CNN, has come out, I can say to them:  Do what the voters want, and pass Cut, Cap and Balance and a Balanced Budget Amendment.

The bill failed on pass the Senate by a vote of 51 against to 46 on Friday, however, bills can be brought back up for a fresh vote in either House if the demand is there.  This CNN poll shows that the demand is there from the American public, and they want Cut, Cap and Balance. 

Sorry, Mr. President, but you do not have the will of the people on this matter.  It's time for you to accept that the American public backs the Tea Party plan, not your Spend, Spend, and Deficit plan.

Now I address Speaker John Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and the rest of the Republican Party:  The American people are with you.  Keep fighting for a real deficit reduction plan and a Balanced Budget Amendment.  We are winning this battle. Time to deal a knockout punch to liberalism in America!


(1) CNN Poll - See Page 18

(2) CNN Poll - See Page 7

Friday, July 22, 2011

Guest Post: Does A Yeast Flake Prove Darwinism?

When this story broke, I felt it was something that deserved a Biblical Conservatism revue.  There was only one problem:  I'm neither a theologian nor a scientist.  Rather than subject my readers to my admittedly limited knowledge on the issue, I felt it was better to ask my friend and fellow blogger Martin Glynn, who is indeed a theologian and a good bit more knowledgable than me on the Creationism/Evolution debate to pen a reaction on the subject.  So, without further adue, please welcome today's guest poster, Martin Glynn!

Recently, my friend Chris sent me an article talking about how a grad student, by the name of William Ratcliff from the University of Minnesota in St. Paul, has gotten single cell organisms, namely brewer's yeast, to exhibit multi-cellular characteristics. Chris sent me this article because an atheist acquaintance of his claimed that this event proved Darwinism beyond a shadow of a doubt. Unfortunately, like many Darwinists, he has failed to appreciate the length of that shadow.

[Two caveats: First, I am not a scientist. I am a theologian. I am not trying to claim that I fully understand each and every reference about evolution that comes to me. My intent is to properly explain what Creationism believes about evolution, and to show that the differences between it and Darwinism are philosophical and not scientific.

Second, the article in question does not suggest that this proves Darwinism; I seriously doubt that was the intention of Mr. Ratcliff as well. Therefore what follows is not a criticism of the article or the experiment. Indeed, I do not feel qualified to criticize either. Instead, it is a response to those that believe that this is a blow to Creationism, which it is not.]

Missing Data

First of all, there is not enough data in this article to claim that evolution has really occurred. There is no real discussion of the genetics: no mention of mutations. All that is recorded are differences of behavior, and biological lifeforms can change their behavior based off of their environment.

Second, there are no links to original sources (and I also could not find any in my research). I even attempted to find some but to no avail (the link to William Ratcliffe was also inaccurate). Therefore, there is very little I can do to verify or elucidate what went on here.

Why It Doesn't Matter

However, there really is not that much of a threat here to Creationism anyway. The problem with most Darwinists' criticisms of Creationism is that they think that we outright reject evolution. We don't. Evolution is nothing more the a description of the process of biological adaptation. Consider this: all Creationists believe that the whole of the human race finds its origin in one man and one woman. Clearly we believe that biological lifeforms progenicly adapt to their environment. Therefore examples of speciation, adaptation, and genetic mutation do not, in of themselves, refute Creationism.

Now it is true that there are certain, shall we say, gaps in the evidence for Darwinism (including but not restricted to: the shift from procaryotic cells to eucaryotic cells, the introduction of sexual reproduction, the disentropic development of a global biosphere, the irreducible complexity of proteinic systems, and, of course, the advent of multicellularity), and it is true that Creationists do much to rhetorical exploit these gaps. But it would be ignorant to therefore think that the Creationist position is merely comprised of filling these gaps with God.

To be fair, many Creationists are responsible for this misunderstanding, using the term 'Evolution' to refer to Darwinism. Some use 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' to distinguish between the two positions, which is better, but I prefer to spearhead straight to the heart and declare things as they are. We are dealing with two philosophies: Darwinism and Creationism. The reason why the difference is philosophical is that the difference between the two is not falsifiable.

Darwinism, generally, believes that evolution is progressive. I say "generally" because Darwinists will admit that evolution sometimes results in something "weaker" (such as albino lizards living in caves). However, the process as a whole is seen as progressive.

Creationism on the other hand considers the evolutionary process to be a form of specialization. In a special creative act, God formed a small but diverse population of lifeforms and from these lifeforms comes all of the creatures on the earth today. The original creatures possessed the potential for all of the forms that we currently have, but it was the various environments which their ancestors found themselves in that shaped the precise forms of modern day life.

The problem is that you cannot prove or disprove either of these ideas...yet. Any example of evolution can be interpreted through either lens. Unsurprising, the example at hand, the development of multicellular characteristics within a population of yeast cells, can easily be interpreted as a innate aspect of yeast to be able to exist on both a single cellular and multicellular level.

On To Particulars

Considering that what this needs to disprove is that yeast never had the capacity to exist in a multicellular way before, I offer the following explanations why it fails:

1. Yeast are communal. Yeast already are single-cell organisms that interact with each other. Confining their environment to intensify this feature is not the same thing as generating multicellularity.

2. All that is really discussed here is behavior. A change of behavior is not the same thing as evolution. Without a layout or discussion of the changes of genetic material, I cannot ascertain whether or not evolution has really occurred here at all.

3. Yeast are fungi. Many fungi are multicellular, some are monocellular, and many fungi act in a somewhat middle ground manner between the two using hydrae. It is not surprising then that scientists would believe that if the gap between single-celled organisms and multicelled organism could be crossed through the fungi kingdom. However, fungi also possess other unique properties that separate them from animals, plants and other lifeforms, and there is no way of indicating that this isn't just inherit to the design of fungi.

4. The article itself actually says that yeast used to be multicellular. While I do not know what the source of this comment is, and whether or not I would agree with it, activating a quality that already exists within the species is essentially the Creationist position, and this is all that this project seems to have demonstrated.

In short, the article and the experiment fail to prove Darwinism over Creationism. This because the difference between the two is not a matter of experimentation, but interpretation of the evidence. Considering that the results of the experiment can be explained within Creationism, and could be predicted within the Creationist paradigm, it doesn't disprove it. In order to disprove something, if it were possible, you have to provide evidence that actually contradicts the position, and in order to know what could do that, you have to actually take the time to learn what that position really believes. Clearly this atheist has not taken the time to do that.
Martin Glynn is a graduate of Northeastern Theological Seminary in Rochester, NY with a Master's Degree in Divinity and a Christian blogger.  You can read his blog at The JC Freak: An Irish Protestant.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

GOP Compromise IS Raising the Debt Limit

The Debt Limit Battle continues to rage and President Obama is continuing to demand compromise from the Republican Party.   In essence, he wants "some of his stuff" (ie tax increases) in return for cuts.  I would like to make a different argument:  The GOP is giving the President a debt limit increase.  That is where they are compromising.  They are giving Obama the ability to borrow more money.  For this, the GOP is requiring significant cuts in government spending so that we can begin to reduce our debt and, if possible, make this increase the last increase.

It's not dissimilar to the debt limit increase that Ronald Reagan signed in 1987 (you know, the one Liberals are trying to claim as Reagan asking for a debt limit increase?).  Time to give you some history that Liberals won't tell you.  Reagan agreed to increase the debt limit in exchange only for spending cuts so that another increase was not necessary.  He was essentially promoting a Cut, Cap and Balance plan.  Unfortunately, Presidents cannot pass legislation, at least not Constitutionally speaking.  (Someone please go tell Obama.)

The GOP is giving Obama what he wants:  a debt limit increase.  That is what Obama is getting.  He is getting the ability to maintain spending above and beyond what money is actually taken in for another 18 months.  That is the compromise: spending cuts in exchange for a debt limit increase.

Obama and the Liberals keep telling us that the GOP needs to compromise.  I've made the point over and over again that what the Democrats want to do is poison the economy by raising taxes on the people who own businesses and thus create jobs.  I have said over and over again that you don't compromise with refuse to ingest it.  That is what we are talking about now.  Obama and the Democrats want to pass bad, fiscally unsustainable policies and they want the GOP to compromise their good, fiscally sustainable policies.  I'm sorry, but this isn't about compromising between two equally good options or even two equally mediocre options or two somewhat bad options.  This is about good ideas or bad ones.

The money doesn't exist to tax more and spend more.  It doesn't.  Not only would it be bad for the economy, but it would also be unsustainable.  It would amount to more of the same unsustainable spending that will ultimately lead to a massive economic collapse akin to what Greece and other European nations are experiencing now. 

One other issue:  There is no Obama plan to compromise WITH.  Obama's sole plan is "just raise the debt limit, do nothing else, pretend we don't have a spending problem at all."  Sorry, but that plan must be a nonstarter because it is a terrible plan.  That's like having a plan for building a stable house that starts with a paper mache foundation.  It's a terrible idea.  Obama has done nothing but wait for the GOP to cave to his terrible demands. Obama is the one who has not presented a reasonable plan.

The GOP is compromising: they are offering to raise the debt limit and bail out the bad debt created by this administration.  Obama and the Democrats must compromise by cutting their irresponsible spending.  The gravy train is over.  The sugar daddy is out of sugar.  It's time to spend what we have, not what we wish we have.  That's the compromise.  Take it or leave it.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Debunking the Clinton Argument

"Clinton raised taxes, and we had a strong economy."  It's a point made frequently by those who are trying to argue the Conservative pillar that cutting taxes leads to stronger economies.  We all recall the 1990s and the economic boom that we all experienced.  Liberals want you to believe raising taxes not only caused the balanced budget but caused the economic boom.  Did Clinton's tax increases really cause it?  If it did, that would certainly be a tough blow to Conservative economic policy.  Unfortunately for Liberals, those pesky facts are going to get in the way.

As a reminder, the 1993 Clinton Tax Increases:

- Increased in the individual income tax rate to 36 percent and a 10 percent surcharge for the highest earners, thereby effectively creating a top rate of 39.6 percent.

- Repealed of the income cap on Medicare taxes. This provision made the 2.9 percent Medicare payroll tax apply to all wage income. Like the Social Security payroll tax base today, the Medicare tax base was capped at a certain level of wage income prior to 1993.

- 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes.

- Increased in the taxable portion of Social Security benefits.

- A permanent extension of the phase-out of personal exemptions and the phase-down of the deduction for itemized expenses.

- Raising the corporate income tax rate to 35 percent. (1)

The nature of the economy in 1993 is an important detail in the reactions to the tax increases.  One, the economy was in full recovery from the rather mild recession of 1990-91.  So it was an economy on the incline BEFORE the tax increases.  Furthermore, as the Heritage Foundation put it:

Tax policy aside, much in the context of the 1990s was conducive to prosperity. The end of the Cold War brought a new sense of hope and greater certainty to the global economy. The price of energy was astoundingly low, with oil prices dropping to about $11 per barrel and averaging under $20 per barrel compared to prices above $90 per barrel today. The Federal Reserve had finally succeeded in establishing a significant degree of price stability, with inflation averaging less than 2 percent during the Clinton Administration. And, of course, a tremendous set of new productivity-enhancing technologies involving information technologies and the World Wide Web burst on the scene. (1)

The Heritage Foundation proceeded to say that, in absence of a major hit to the economy (like a large tax increase, which the Clinton increase wasn' was a modest one), it would be hard NOT to have nice growth in the economy.  That's what we had, modest, but not spectacular growth in the economy from 1993-1996.  That included:

- The economy grew at an average annual rate of 3.2 percent in inflation-adjusted terms.

- Employment rose by 11.6 million jobs.

- Average real hourly wages rose a total of five cents per hour.

- Total market capitalization of the S&P 500 rose 78 percent in inflation-adjusted terms. (1)

This sort of growth is expected anyway from a country coming out of a recession.  It's a solid 240,000 jobs per month average.  Again, this can be expected from an economy recovering from a recession, especially a modest one like the 1990-91 recession.  In essence, prior to 1997, the Clinton Tax increases were not sufficient to offset the positive trends in the economy, thus there was a modest growth.

But Chris, wasn't the 90s economy a booming one?  In the LATE 90s it most certainly was a boom.  What happened then to cause those booms?  I'm so glad you asked.  In 1997, the Republicans passed a tax relief and deficit reduction package.  That package:

- Lowered the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent

- Created a new $500 child tax credit

- Established the new Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits to reduce the after-tax costs of higher education

- Phased in an increase in the estate tax exemption from $600,000 to $1 million

- Established Roth IRAs and increased the income limits for deductible IRAs

- Established education IRAs

- Conformed AMT depreciation lives to regular tax live
- Phased in a 15 cent-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax.

Yep, taxes were CUT.  Then, and only then, did we see the economy boom.  The Capital Gains cut lead to a huge boost in investment capital in businesses (that's business owners investing in their own businesses, for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL).  In 1995, there was approximately $8 Billion invested in venture capital.  In 1998, the first full year of the capital gains cut, there was a $28 Billion invested in venture capital. (1) Also, after that point, we saw real GDP growth increased from 3.2% to 4.2% and wages grew by more than 10 times the wage growth in the previous four years.  Yes, some of that boom was also due to the boom in internet industry.  No argument there.  That said, can anyone really claim that the Clinton Tax Hikes helped create the so-called dot com businesses?  Not legitimately, anyway.

Drawing upon historical evidence, I would argue that the Clinton tax increases may have hindered the growth a little, based on the old economic axiom "if you want less of something, tax it."  I would agree the increases weren't sufficient enough to do serious damage, since those rates, at least on the Federal level, were still under the damage line of the Laffer Curve.  However, the frequent claim of the Left that the Clinton Tax Increases lead to the booming economy is patently false.  It was Clinton and the Republican Congress' tax cuts in 1997 that lead to the boom.  Even in the Clinton economy, the score was Conservatism 1, Liberalism 0.


(1) Overall Source:  Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the 1990s Boom

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Obama is Not the Adult in the Room

Those of you who have watched Obama's drivelling speeches over the past, you'll see a man who is trying to present himself as the "adult in the room" who is mediating between the reasonable Democrats and the horribly unreasonable Republicans.  He continues to list all the things that Republicans "refuse" to do, yet Obama is the person who is refusing to budge on his own desires.  He acts as though the Republicans owe him more in compromise than giving him his debt ceiling increase.  That IS the GOP's compromise...raising the debt limit!

Obama is not even an adult in the room at this point.  He has acted like a spoiled child who, all of a sudden, is now expected to behave and is not given his own way because he says "I want" anymore.  So Obama is throwing a tantrum behind closed doors.  He's telling Congressman Eric Cantor, "Don't call my bluff," and promising to go to the American people.  The people don't want what Obama's selling anymore, as evidenced by the drop in his poll numbers (1).

Obama excoriates Congress for "running up the credit card" when they were running up that card to fund spending Obama wanted!  Stimulus one, stimulus two, Obamacare, do these sound familiar to anyone else?  Shovel ready jobs that never happened, here a bailout, there a bailout, everywhere a bailout.  It was Obama's spending that ran up those bills.  Now he wants to pretend he had nothing to do with it. It's false. 

Obama lead that spending, he said it was necessary.  It failed, and now he just blames everyone else but him.  It's not Obama's fault, it's Bush's fault...just ask Obama.  Bush's worst deficit was just over $400 Billion (which I agree is still  $400 Billion too much), but Obama has deficits that are three to four times as large.  Obama's policies failed, and he tells us that things would've been worse if he hadn't overspent our tax dollars.

In the debt battle, Obama has said that "if the Republicans bring him a reasonable solution he'll discuss it."  The Republican solution is very reasonable:  Cut one dollar of spending for every new borrowed dollar and pass a balanced budget amendment so we are putting our house in order for good.  So start cutting to get our budget in line then keep it there.  That's a highly reasonable solution, one that American families use when it's time for THEM to get THEIR budgets in line.  Most of them don't even keep borrowing in that solution.  Obama is ignoring this solution because Republicans won't let him raise taxes.  By the way, do you remember Obama saying "The last thing you want to do is raise taxes in a recession?"  I sure do.  Are we still in a recession?  Yes.  Is unemployment still high? Sure is...and rising.  Now Obama flip-flops on this issue, because it suits his momentary desire.

Obama and the Drive-By Media keep trumpeting his proposal of "$4 Trillion in cuts."  Here's the problem:  There is no proposal by Obama that calls for that amount of cuts.  Obama has no proposal on the table.  The only cuts he has proposed are $2 Billion for next year.  $2 Billion.  That's NOTHING.  That is .05% of the Federal Budget.  To give an u nderstandable comparision, if a person who has a $50,000 per year income cuts .05% of THEIR budget it's an annual savings of $25.  It's a pittance. We spent more than eight times that amount on pork barrel projects last year. 

The truth is Obama has simply named a big sounding number.  10 year budgets are a joke anyway, because the next Congress or President (or even the same Congress and President) can choose to ignore in the following year.  Don't believe me?  Obama told us six months ago that we couldn't raise taxes in this economy, yet now he wants to because it will get people to let him keep spending.  (Those taxes won't help the budget gaps at all past ten days, but they might convince Americans to let Obama keep spending.)

Even if it was real, that would still only cutting 10% of spending out of a budget that is spending nearly 30% more than is taken in.  If you look at that same person whose annual income is $50,000 per year, that person would have to spend $65,000 per year, incurring $15,000 per year in debt.  How sustainable would that be for YOUR family, especially when you include the compounding interest year after year?  But Obama wants you to let him keep spending that amount of our money and compound that interest that WE will have to pay.

Do these arguments sound like an adult?  Of course they don't.  Obama can't see that it might be his policies, it's always somebody else's fault, usually a President whose been out of office for three years now.  Bottom line: Obama has strongly contributed to this crisis.  His policies have put us in this position as it pertains to the debt.  Obama has run up the credit card and wants to be given another one to fulfill his spending habit.  He is not the adult in the room.  He is the spoiled child who is trying to claim the adult's status.


(1) Rasmussen - Obama Approval Index

Monday, July 18, 2011

We do not have a Revenue Problem, We have a Spending Problem

The debt limit battle continues to rage, and I for one would like to ask why it is we need to raise the debt limit at all?  The purpose of a debt limit is to cap spending and debt at a certain point.  At this point, it's time to accept that we've spent enough.  Liberals, lead by the President, keep talking about raising taxes to fund their irresponsible spending, but that will not solve our problem.  We do not have a revenue problem.  We have a SPENDING problem.

In the President's Friday speech, he claimed that "80% of the American people want a debt limit deal with some sort of tax increases." Wow.  No, they don't, actually, Mr. President.  According to a CBS/NYT Poll in April, nearly 70% of Americans don't want the debt ceiling raised AT ALL! That's one.  Two, Obama's statement is patently false.  According to a recent Gallup Poll, Americans prefer to deal with the deficit with only or mostly spending cuts nearly five to one over only or mostly tax increases.  Sorry, Mr. President, that's not true at all. One, they don't want a debt limit increase at all.  Two, most don't want tax increases.  More lies.

We do not have a taxation problem.  We have a spending problem.  Don't believe me?  Here's a quick history lesson:

President Obama would like you to believe that it was the Bush Tax Cuts that caused our deficit problems.  Based on that logic, you would expect that Bush's deficits to be close to those of Obama's, right?  Unfortunately, those pesky old facts keep getting in the way of Obama's argument. 

You see, under Bush, the worst deficits were just over $400 Billion.  I recognize that is far too much (about $400 billion too much by my math), but Obama's deficits in 2009 ended up being $1.4 Trillion, in 2010 the Obama deficit was $1.3 Trillion.  This year, it is projected to be over $1.6 Trillion (that would be four times Bush's worst deficit).  Refresh my memory, but weren't the tax rates under Bush the same as the rates under Obama?  Huh.  While we're at it, notice that before Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act reaped it's disasterous results in the sub-prime mortgage crash that those deficits were shrinking under Bush's tax rates.  Isn't that interesting?

Obama knows the Republicans aren't going to raise taxes, because to raise taxes in this economy would be absolute poison to the job market. So he keeps demanding it so he can claim "the Republicans are being unreasonable." The truth is Obama is demanding poison of the economy to pay for his overspending that is insufficient to cover those deficits anyway. But Obama won't admit that. He'd rather lie about it to keep the gravy train going a little longer.

Obama knows that the Bush rates did not cause the deficits.  Spending by Bush like Medicare Part D caused the deficits, just like Obama's spending has caused more deficits.  He also knows that raising rates as he wants won't make up a fraction of his deficits.  The truth, even though Obama won't admit it, is that he has spent far too much.  (To be fair, so did Bush.)
We are spending more than 50% more than the revenue we have, and that is simply not sustainable.  I made the mistake of spending significantly less than that over my budget when I was fresh out of college, probably about 10% over my income.  I spent that way for about a year, then I realized I could flat out not sustain it.  I proceeded to live like a pauper for a further three years until I could get back on my feet financially.  It wasn't by raising my personal revenue (actually, my salary dropped a little bit when this economy cost me my job in September of 2009) and yet when I started spending smarter (for example, buying store brand food instead of name brand) I had more money to spend on wants in my budget.
Spending at the levels Obama wants to spend is flat out unsustainable.  It requires large scale borrowing, because there is not enough money in the country to tax to fund this irresponsibility.  To borrow from an Obama talking point: It's time to "eat our peas" and cut spending.  Period.

Friday, July 15, 2011

Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: Where's the "Shared Sacrifice" from Government?

As we conclude our week where we've been taking time to dissect the Liberal talking points as it pertains to the Debt Limit debate, I'd like to dive into one of the most frustrating talking points Liberals love.  "shared sacrifice." His claim is saying that "we all have to sacrifice." It's interesting to me to note that private citizens have sacrificed (just look at the unemployment rate and the dropping housing values) and businesses have sacrificed (their profits are down), but one group hasn't sacrificed, at least not on the national level:  Government.

Government, lead by Democrats and Barrack Obama, will not sacrifice anything.  They won't sacrifice pork barrell spending.  They won't sacrifice stimulus spending.  They won't sacrifice Obamacare (which the majority of Americans don't want now and never wanted).  They won't agree to cut spending in exchange for a debt limit increase and they won't agree to live within the budget they have now. 

No, they insist they must take MORE of your money.  You sacrifice more, so government doesn't have to sacrifice a cent.  If you are among the wealthiest 10% (which I am not, by the way), you are already paying 85% of the taxes and, depending on where you live, are paying up to 55% of your hard earned income in taxes after the federal, state, and local governments take taxes out of your paycheck.  Government keeps saying "No, it's not enough, don't be selfish, pay more."  Sean Hannity is fond of saying that Liberals, who are already taking that 55% of your income, are "taking a baseball bat to your head" and saying "give more." 

Government is spending too much.  As Sarah Palin said recently "the sugar daddy has run out of sugar."  Government in general and Liberal Democrats in specific are refusing to share in the sacrifice that the rest of us are currently experiencing.  The rest of us have to cut back on vacations, but Obama takes vacations twice a quarter.  The rest of us have to work harder and harder, while Obama plays more golf.  I'd love to play golf all the time, but I've only been able to afford it once this year.  I'm going on one vacation this year, like most Americans.  How many has Obama taken, on our dime?

Government has not sacrificed at all. Liberals screamed bloody murder during Bush's first few years when budgets limited government growth to the rate of inflation, ostensibly leaving the budgets at the same amount. Democrats called keeping budgets the same (adjusted for inflation) "draconian cuts." There were no cuts! There was just no increase! Yet even that sacrifice was impossible for Democrats to agree to...they want to selfishly hold on to their power and your money. They are the ones who won't sacrifice, not us.

We the people have indeed sacrificed enough.  It's time for government to sacrifice.  Start by not raising the debt limit at all, or at least slashing spending.  We've spent too much, and now, as Obama's pastor would say, government's "chickens have come home to roost."  Time for government to share in the sacrifice and spend less.

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: The Rich Pay MORE than their "Fair Share"

This week we've been taking time to dissect the Liberal talking points as it pertains to the Debt Limit debate.  One of the lines that President Obama continues to use that the rich don't "pay their fair share" in taxes.  Unfortunately, pesky old facts keep getting in the way of Obama's demagoguery:


They tell you that the rich "don't pay their 'fair share' in taxes" but unfortunately, it's just not true.  Let's look at it by the numbers:  The top 1% of Americans earn 19% of the income in America, but pay 37% of the taxes.  The top 5% earn 33% of the income, while paying 57% of taxes.  The top 25% earn 66% of the income while paying 85% of the taxes.  Liberals are right, the "rich" aren't paying "their fair share" they're paying far more than their fair share!

Some sources will offer you a different metric:  The percentage of taxes as opposed to percentage of wealth.  I'm sorry, but there are two issues with that mentality:  One, taxes are paid on income (that's incoming money, for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL) not on wealth.  The money that people already have in the bank has ALREADY BEEN TAXED!  Whether it was taxed upon inheritance (also known as the Death Tax) or it was taxed upon an increase in investment (also known as Capital Gains Tax) or if it was saved income from a previous year (Income Tax), that money has already been taxed once.  So basically, by claiming it's okay to tax on wealth, government is punishing people for daring to save their money or invest well and thus have excess money at years end.  Two, and I cannot stress this enough, it's still not the government's money.  One way or another, they've already taxed those individuals once, and now, because government is irresponsible with it's spending, they don't feel their previous taxes levied are enough and are demanding more! 

Actually, the people who don't "pay their fair share" are a large group of Democrat voters:  The bottom 32% of wage earners who pay zero taxes. (2)  43.4 million wage earners pay zero taxes on the federal level.  Some even receive tax refunds that exceed the money they paid.  That's right...when their deductions exceed their taxes paid, they are paid the amount of the excess in addition to their tax deductions.  Translation:  If you paid $500 in federal taxes and have deductions that equal $600 and have an income that puts you at the 0% income tax level, you receive your $500 that was withheld back, PLUS an additional $100 that was never yours to begin with! 

So 32% of Americans are paying no taxes, and by the way those are the ones who are receiving the government services that the rest of our taxes pay for like Medicaid and other welfare programs.  (These people statistically vote Democrat, by the way.)  Some of them are even receiving money that wasn't theirs to begin with in a tax refund from the government.  Where does that money come from?  It's from taxing other people to whom that money DOES belong.  Meanwhile, we're running deficits annually.  Anyone else seeing a pattern here?

Bottom line, the wealthy pay significantly more than their "fair share" in taxes.  The only way to claim they don't is to believe that their "fair share" is whatever government wants it to be.  It's simply false a false statement bent on class warfare. 


(1) Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes

(2) Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: Raising Corporate Taxes Costs CONSUMERS

This week, as the Debt Limit battle continues, we've been explaining the truth behind the Liberal talking points that the Drive-By Media won't tell you. Today, we're going to dive into the truth behind the Liberal idea that raising taxes on big businesses won't effect us, the middle class taxpayer.

As usual, Liberals are applying an expectation of static consequences to a new tax. Liberals always assume businesses don't change their behaviors or, in this case, their prices, when taxes are increased. There's an unfortunate truth behind it: Corporate taxes are ultimately passed along to the consumers. That means YOU are paying for it. Liberals would have you believe that if government imposes a tax on Proctor and Gable, for example, that means Proctor and Gamble just pays the extra tax out of their profits. In reality, the cost of that tax is rolled into the cost of that bottle of Tide you're buying. Either that or they step back production to continue to maintain the same profit margins. (1) Lower production means fewer employees, by the way.

That's the problem with Liberal economic assumptions; they always assume the rosiest of scenarios. Unforutnately, raising those corporate taxes hurts you. It means either the company cuts production and people lose jobs or the price goes up. Either way, it hurts the middle class. That's the problem Liberals don't tell you: you pay for that tax increase.

Don't believe me? Did you know that the United States Fuel Tax and state fuel taxes were hypothetically supposed to be levied on the gas station? Guess what, it isn't. You pay it. It's included in the prices. (Somewhere in the history of the gas tax the gas stations and the government dropped all pretenses and just advertised the price as "all taxes included). Before you lambast the "evil gas station owners," the current Federal gas tax is at $0.18 per gallon and the average gas station's profit on a gallon of gas is $0.07-$0.10 per gallon. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means the tax is somewhere between $0.08 to $0.11 per gallon OVER their profits.)

For the most part, gas stations make their money selling you a Mountain Dew, a pack of Twinkies and a tin of Altoids, not on gas. Even on a full tank they're only making a buck or two profit. If I fill my car's 13 gallon tank (I drive a Chevy Malibu for those who care), that means a gas station on the high end of the profit range is making $0.91 - $1.30 of profit on me, once a week. Meanwhile, the government is making nearly twice that amount taxing you. So who's the one who is gouging you again?

No, there's no legal way to force the corporations to not roll those taxes into their prices. By the way, they aren't doing anything wrong. They are simply maintaining a net profit margin that makes their investment (aka risk) worthwhile. It's either going to lead to cutting production (which means cutting workers) or raising prices.
Don't believe the Liberal lie: Raising taxes on corporations isn't raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires. It's raising taxes on you.

(1) Reality Check: Liberal Tax Policy Has Not and Will Not Succeed

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Dissecting the Liberal talking Points - Things Would Have Been Much Worse if...

This week, as the debt ceiling battle has heats up, we’ve been taking time to dissect some of the Liberal talking points and explain why they are false. Today we’re going to dive into the frequently used defense of Obama’s Stimulus plans that “Things would’ve been much worse if we hadn’t acted.” It’s easy to say, but impossible to prove, which is likely why Obama and the Democrats like to trumpet it.

The Stimulus failed to do what it was advertised to do: keep unemployment from rising above 8%. Unemployment currently sits at 9.2% two years after the stimulus. It has been as high as 10.2%.  By all measures it failed miserably. Liberals tell us that “things would’ve been worse.” It’s easy to say, but impossible to prove. Historically, such Keynesian economic plans have failed. Many economists believe that if the economy had simply been left alone, the economy would have recovered. Yet we are still mired in a recession that is heading for a double-dip.

The claim that things would’ve been much worse is a cop out. It’s an attempt to claim success from failure. It’s like a football coach who loses the Super Bowl by a field goal saying, “It could’ve been worse. We could’ve lost by three touchdowns! So by that measure, we succeeded by only losing by 3 points.” The truth, however, is that the team lost the Super Bowl. The coach can’t claim victory in that case. Neither can Obama. The stimulus failed. To call it anything but a failure is nothing more than claiming that the end zones were at the 20 yard line so that the team can claim touchdowns were scored each time they were in the Red Zone. However, in the economy, the only measure of victory is turning around an economy.

There is no evidence that the Stimulus did anything to help the economy. It can’t be proven, actually the evidence said it did nothing at best. Yet the Obama administration trumpets it like its fact. The Stimulus failed to do what it claimed it would do. The Stimulus was supposed to prevent unemployment above 8%. Unemployment has spent two years above 8%. That’s a failed program.

Another false measure that the Obama Administration invented to claim victory is “jobs created or saved.” How, precisely, do you quantify a “job saved”? Did the administration poll every American business to see which ones were ready to contract their workforce prior to the stimulus but instead retained those employees? Of course they didn’t. Rather, the Obama administration concocted a number of jobs they expected to be lost, and then considered any jobs before that number as a “job saved.” So if they assessed that we would’ve seen unemployment at say 15% and unemployment only reached 10.2%, you can claim that 4.8% of all jobs in the country were “jobs saved.”

It’s an invented crisis that allows the Obama administration to claim success for something they did not do. It rings reminiscent to me of the movie Canadian Bacon. (If you’ve never seen it, I recommend it.) In it, a fictional American President attempts to invent a nonexistent cold war with Canada to hopefully cause the same kinds of economic booms that the Cold War created through military spending in the private sector. Like the stimulus and the “second great depression” it was a contrived problem which could be “solved” by the government.

The President and his willing accomplices in the Drive-By Media have worked to support this contrivance and lie to the American people. I’ll be some of your jobs were the jobs “saved” as far as the Obama Administration is concerned. I know that my job, which was created along with two others in the fall of 2009, were three of the jobs the Obama administration claims was created by the Stimulus. I can tell you with certainty that’s not what happened. What happened was my company took a risk to create a new department based on an economic opportunity they saw. They didn’t spend stimulus money on it, they spent their own money on it.

That’s the biggest reason the stimulus cannot be considered successful. Other than the bailouts of a few businesses which didn’t deserve to be bailed out, the Stimulus was nothing more than a slush fund for Obama to pay off his Big Union cronies and complete the various bribes to pass Obamacare. As Obama now famously admitted recently, there were no “shovel ready jobs.” The money wasn’t spent on infrastructure, as claimed, because now Obama wants still more money to spend on the same infrastructure.

It’s another lie from the Obama Administration. He’s claiming something that failed succeeded. It’s a move as old as the Liberal Playbook. They tell us how the world will end if we don’t do “X” then, regardless how bad it is after “X” is passed, they tell us how things would have been much, much worse. They are doing it to us right now as it pertains to the Debt Limit increase that is being debated now. They are telling us how badly things will go if we don’t raise the Debt Limit. Should the Republican Party cave, which I sincerely hope they won’t, and things get far worse in the economy as a result of those Liberal policies, I can guarantee you we’ll be told how much worse things would’ve been if we hadn’t acted . You can bank on it.

You can also bank on the fact that, if the GOP doesn’t cave and actually requires real cuts in spending without agreeing to raise taxes on business owners and thus harm the economy, the world won’t end. The United States has reached the Debt Limit before and let it expire without extension and the horrible consequences that Democrats are now predicting didn’t happen then, and they won’t happen this time either. It’s just another false Liberal talking point.

Monday, July 11, 2011

Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: Taxes were not Cut in 2010

The Debt Limit debate is in full swing with the President and Congressional Democrats are breaking out their cliché fear mongering rhetoric. With that in mind, I wanted to take time this week to dissect these talking points and explain why they are false. For starters, Republicans are responsibly refusing to allow Democrats to raise taxes in this already strained economy. One talking point that keeps coming from the Left is “We tried tax cuts last year and they haven’t helped the economy.”

Inherent in this statement is a huge lie: In 2010 there were no tax cuts, other than a piddling little 2% cut in social security taxes. Other than that, all that happened was an extension of existing tax rates. Continuing the status quo by its very definition is not a cut. If I decide to maintain my current diet, including my current caloric intake, I cannot say I’ve cut calories. Yet Democrats want us to believe that the President cut income taxes. He didn’t cut income taxes. He simply didn’t raise them.

You see, friends, Liberals seem to believe that the proper income tax rates are always whatever the last Democrat President’s tax increases set the rates. In our modern time, this means they consider any tax rate below Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax increase as a cut. That’s why they keep referring to the Bush tax rates which have been in place since 2003 as “tax cuts.” It’s pure sophistry. The current tax rates have been in place since 2003. Those rates will now continue until 2012. The current tax rates we have now are the tax rates, period. They are not a cut anymore. In 2003 when they were enacted they were cuts, because they reduced tax rates from what the rates were in 2002. The rates this year are precisely the same as they were last year, as they were the year before and since 2003. Simply maintaining them is not a cut.

President Obama didn’t cut taxes. The reason tax cuts are good for the economy is because it means people have more take home pay in their paycheck. Let’s use Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Regardless of what Liberals want to tell you, every tax bracket saw a rate cut. So let’s look at the lowest tax bracket as an example, shall we? Let’s take that person in the bottom tax bracket. Prior to the Bush tax cuts, that bracket was 15%. So a person who is in that bottom bracket who has an annual income of $20,000 per year under the previous brackets would be paying $3000 per year in federal taxes. Under the Bush cuts that individual’s tax rate was cut to 10%. So instead of paying $3000 in federal taxes, now they are paying $2000 in federal taxes.

It may not sound like much, but it’s actually a big difference in that person’s budget. It’s a difference of about $80 per month. To that person who is making only $20,000 per year in salary (that’s a bit over $1600 per month), an extra $80 per month is a big difference.

$80 a month extra is actually a big deal even for someone making more than $20,000 per year. I’ll use some examples in my own personal budget as someone who does make a decent amount over that figure: $80 is roughly the amount I spend every two weeks on groceries for myself. It’s also approximately what I spend for two weeks worth of gas for my car. $80 is about what I pay for car insurance each month. I drive a used car that has close to 100,000 miles on it, so I budget about $80 per month for repairs as needed.

While we’re at it, consider the fact that I’m already paying all those items with the money I’m currently earning. Unlike the Federal government, I’m living within my financial means. Actually, I’m able to fulfill my budget, have a little bit of play money and save about 5% of my income. An extra $80 would make a HUGE difference in my life. With $80 more each month, I could go out to dinner five more times each month than I do now. I could afford to go to the movies more often. In the summer, $80 would give me the ability to play golf two more times each month at a nice golf course. One of my favorite things to do is go see my local minor league baseball team’s games. With $80 per month, I could go to four Rochester Redwings games with a friend each month during the summer.

Perhaps you don’t understand how me having an extra $80 helps the economy. Here’s how: Someone has to take my money at the movie theater. Somebody has to pour my soda and scoop my popcorn. Somebody has to mow the grass at the golf course and maintain the tee boxes and greens. Somebody has to work the box office at the ball game. Somebody has to cook the hot dog and pour the beverage I’ll buy there at the game and take my money when I buy those items.

When lots of people suddenly have more money in their paychecks and their fixed expenses stay the same (for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, fixed expenses are things like housing, car payments, and utilities that are always part of your budget each month), it gets spent on buying new things that aren’t needed at the moment, like a car or new furniture or a new television. If several people choose to go to the movies more regularly, the theater needs to staff their shifts with more ticket takers, ushers, and concession stand attendants. Another person might choose to buy new clothes, which means the clothing store needs to have someone there to take care of the shoppers. Not to mention the fact that the company that makes the clothes is now selling more items and increasing its production. Even if I put the entirety of that money into savings, that’s an extra $1000 in the bank. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, banks don’t just hang on to your money in a big safe. They use that money to give loans to businesses and individuals. That’s why the pay you interest.)

That’s why tax cuts help the economy. In 2010, there was no cut. My paycheck didn’t see any significant increase in take home pay. Saw that 2% cut in social security taxes…it meant a whopping extra $8 in my paycheck over the course of a month. I can buy one fast food meal with that (hardly world-changing). For all intents and purposes, my take home pay did not change. There was no tax cut. People didn’t have any more money in their pockets, so they didn’t have anything extra to spend. So basically, we did nothing and nothing happened. What a shock.

It is an Obama lie taxes were cut. It’s a further lie to say that Republicans are “fighting to keep the tax cuts of millionaires and billionaires.” The current rates have been in place for eight years to date. They are not a cut. They are the tax rates. Should those rates be increased, it would not be removing a tax cut, it would be raising taxes. Specifically, it would be raising taxes on the very people who own businesses. It would be raising taxes on the people who create jobs. Same goes for raising capital gains taxes. You are taking business capital out of the budgets of business owners. Not a wise decision when what this country needs is more jobs.

This particular talking point is nothing more than class warfare. They are trying to play divide and conquer, to tell people that the benevolent government will get back at those evil people who have more money than you. Let me ask you a question, if you are one such person who believes it would be good to get back at that rich person: If they have less money, does it help you at all? Do you suddenly have more wealth? No. Only the government will be wealthier. You think the government is going to give it to you? Only in the form of government programs that keep you in poverty. The only equality of outcome government can give you is equality of bad results by trickling up poverty.

The economy won’t be improved by taking more from the wealthy. Neither will the deficit be reduced. As Senator Marco Rubio demonstrated last week, it would only pay for about ten days of deficit spending. What’s the plan for dealing with the other 355 days? Here’s the truth that Obama won’t tell you: To achieve the positive results of tax cuts, you have to actually reduce the current rates. The 2010 tax extension did not increase anyone’s take-home pay. It won’t lead to new revenue through new taxpayers via new jobs. Tax cuts work. They’ve worked every time they’ve been tried. Maintaining the status quo and expecting new and better results doesn’t happen.

When the President and other Liberals try to say “we tried tax cuts, they didn’t work,” know that it’s a lie. They didn’t cut taxes. They just didn’t raise them. They didn’t do unnecessary harm to the economy in 2010 by raising taxes, that much is true. They also didn’t do anything to help it. They just let it sit still in its ill state.

Friday, July 8, 2011

Senator Marco Rubio Hits it Out of the Park on Debt Ceiling

On Tuesday, Senator Marco Rubio took to the floor of the United States Senate to respond to President Obama’s desires to “raise revenue” as it pertains to the debt ceiling. Senator Rubio flat out hit it out of the park on this issue. Senator Rubio gets it to a degree so many Republicans are failing to understand thus far. I could explain more, but rather, let’s let the Senator speak for himself.  For the record, Senator Rubio hits the stage just after the 3 minute mark:

I won't dive into the entire speech, but I do recommend it. One important note, however, that he makes.  The math doesn't add up on Obama's "revenue generation."  With all the proposed taxes, we would only deal with less than ten days of current deficit spending.  That's a drop in the bucket folks.

Here's a few excerpts from the speech with my thoughts:

Here's the bottom line: These tax increases they're talking about. These so-called revenue enhancers, they don't solve the problem. So what do we do then?

One, we have to hold the line on spending, if you keep digging yourself in the hole, the hole is going to bury you, the other thing is how do you start generating revenue for government so you can start paying down this debt? That’s what the debate should be about.

Senator Rubio is saying precisely what I’ve been saying for the past months: We have a spending problem. If we spend more and more, we’re just digging the hole deeper. We need to spend less money, not raise more revenue. Liberals have tried to raise more revenue and it doesn’t balance the budget. Don’t give me the Clinton argument, folks. Clinton cut spending heavily and that’s what balanced the budget, not raising taxes.

We already know these taxes don't work. Here is what I suggest works in a balanced approach, using the President's terminology. Let's stop talking about new taxes and start talking about creating new taxpayers, which basically means jobs.

Here in Washington, this debt is the number-one issue on everyone's mind, and rightfully so. It is a major issue. But everywhere else in the real world, the number one issue on everyone's minds is jobs. …

We don't need new taxes. We need new taxpayers, people that are gainfully employed, making money and paying into the tax system. Then we need a government that has the discipline to take that additional revenue and use it to pay down the debt and never grow it again. That's what we should be focused on, and that's what we're not focused on.

Bingo. Unemployment is over 9%. We don’t need new stimulus and new spending or even continued spending. We need JOBS. Government spending didn’t work. If it had worked, we wouldn’t need to have this conversation. We need to spend less, have the discipline to not spend more than we have. Raising the debt ceiling is saying “I know we’ve been spending far too much, but we need to spend more than that, so give us more money to burn.”

You look at all these taxes being proposed, and here's what I say. I say we should analyze every single one of them through the lens of job creation, issue number one in America. I want to know which one of these taxes they're proposing will create jobs. I want to know how many jobs are going to be created by the plane tax. How many jobs are going to be created by the oil company tax I heard so much about. How many jobs are created by going after the millionaires and billionaires the president talks about? I want to know: How many jobs do they create?

I’ll answer Senator Rubio’s rhetorical question: Zero. The removal of oil company subsidies will cause oil companies to have to cut costs. That means they will at least not be hiring new workers if not laying off some of the workers so they can maintain their necessary margins to make the risk of their investment worthwhile. Same goes for those private jets. Do you think millionaires and billionaires build those planes? Heck no. It’s done by blue collar American workers. So their jobs are in jeopardy if the cost of those planes goes up thus meaning fewer people are buying them because the price has risen.

That’s the real issue at hand. The President is going to hurt the job market by raising taxes. Those attempts to “raise revenue” won’t have static results. Raising taxes 10% on a particular product won’t automatically result in a net 10% gain. The price rises and less will be purchased, for one. For two, such measures inevitably cost jobs, which will mean fewer taxpayers, which leads to lower than projected tax revenue. It’s a negative cycle that continues when you keep raising taxes.

No, we have spent too much. We have reached a point where we cannot spend further. It is time to stop spending more money than we have in the bank. You know, American families have to do? It’s time to live within our means. Get the spending down to the just over $2 Trillion that we take in.

Cut taxes, by the way, and you will raise more revenue. History proves that when you cut marginal rates business owners tend to reinvest in their businesses and that means more people paying taxes. For a responsible change, when we do bring in more revenue than we need, reduce taxes further rather than rushing to spend that money. Capitalism is the solution to this economy, not more Keynesian redistribution and government spending. That plan has failed. It’s been given two and a half years to work. It’s gotten us more of the same.

Senator Rubio is right: We need to create an economic climate that will be positive for business growth. Government doesn’t create jobs. The same millionaires and billionaires, who Obama wants to soak for every cent he can to continue his irresponsible spending, are the ones who create jobs. Right now they are on defense. They are afraid to hire because they quite frankly don’t know what that new job will cost thanks to Obama’s confiscatory tax plans. The cost of doing business might go up if Obama has his way, so business owners aren’t hiring. Remove that doubt and businesses will hire and we will create taxpayers.

Senator Rubio hit the nail on the head in this speech. None of Obama’s plans will create jobs. They will cost jobs. It’s time for the government to stop spending 50% more than they take in. It’s irresponsible. I can’t do that. Neither can you. Time to live within our means, Mr. President. Your party’s years of spending billions and even trillions more than we have so you can secure votes are over. Same goes for the Republicans who have chosen to spend like Liberals. (You’re staring down the barrel of a Tea Party primary in your next election, by the way.) Time to live within our means.

On a final note, I want to say that every time I hear Senator Rubio speak I get chills. He gets it. The young Conservatives on the national stage get it, and Marco Rubio is one of the most prevalent among them. I wasn’t alive in 1964 to hear Ronald Reagan’s “A Time for Choosing” speech, but I imagine this is what it felt like to hear a once in a lifetime Conservative leader step onto the national stage and take the mike and lead. I’ve made a few political predictions in my time, and there are a couple still out there waiting to be seen. I think we’re going to see President Rubio one of these days. Not in 2012, mind you, but someday. He’s a man who gets it, and boy we need people like him to lead.

Senator Rubio, I commend you. You’ve said what needs to be said. Thank you for leading while those who are officially in leadership are trying to wimp out. Keep fighting the good fight for America. It’s not going unnoticed.
(1) Overall Source:

Thursday, July 7, 2011

The Bias of Moderateness

We all know these people: They're so very proud of their moderateness, they trumpet how they "listen to both sides then make a decision issue by issue." They almost always find a way to land in the center, somehow, even though they're considering each issue on its merits. It's as legitimate of a bias as Conservatism or Liberalism, without the inherent honesty of bias that comes with the Left and the Right (Drive-By Media and their poorly hidden bias not withstanding).

These individuals believe that the concept of the middle ground taught in the school yard is absolutely true in life. You know which concept I speak of: If two people are having a disagreement, it is likely neither are 100% right, but the truth is in the middle. (This is often false, by the way. (This is often false, by the way. If one child is bullying another child because the bully needs to feel superior or in control of another person, the bullied child is not partially to blame; the bully is to blame for his actions.) Thus they find a way to land in the middle.

They see Conservatives pushing for low taxes and Liberals for high taxes, they recommend the two sides split the difference. They see Conservatives wanting small government and Liberals wanting big government, they push for medium sized government. Unfortunately, both economic history and the desire for the maximum amount of freedom for individuals would stand in the way of even medium level taxes or medium sized government. In the case of the former, the more money you take out of the economy the more you are harming the ability of business owners to hire by taking away business capital. In the case of the latter, we already have too much government; quite frankly we need less of it that the current batch of Republicans is accepting.

It’s not hard to understand WHY people love being considered moderates. In the case of Liberals, they recognize that Liberalism is not main stream by any stretch. In the Gallup Poll that I quote frequently (1), only 20% of Americans consider themselves Liberal. So, wanting to be perceived as mainstream, they call themselves “moderate.”

Conservatives actually are quite main stream. The same poll shows 42% of Americans consider themselves Conservative, more than double the number of Liberals and a comfortable 7% more than consider themselves Moderate. Unfortunately, Conservatives are treated as being as extreme as Liberalism, and since they don’t want to be perceived as extremists, many Conservatives call themselves “Moderate.”

There’s another reason, and it’s more important than the others. The Media has done its very best to promote being a moderate as akin to being thoughtful, intellectual, good with children, an excellent cook, and all kinds of good things. The Drive-Bys have done their best to make sure you WANT to be called Moderate, because it makes you sound wise.

Automatically aiming for the middle doesn’t make a person wise. What makes a person wise is being intelligent enough to do the things that work and have worked over time. Wisdom is continuing the things that have brought positive results and ceasing the things that yielded negative results. Historically, Conservatism has yielded positive results and Liberalism has yielded negative results. To split the difference is to simply garner somewhat less positive results at best or somewhat less lousy results at worst.

Yet there are individuals who define their entire political beliefs on the idea of being moderate. If they truly considered each issue on its merit, it is likely they would end up with a Conservative view on some issues and a more Liberal view on others. I’ve met few people who fit that description (although there are a handful of such people). The ones who aren’t Conservatives or Liberals in denial and aren’t in that small handful I mentioned before are people who are biased toward moderateness.

They put one leg on either side of the fence on every issue and sit. My friends, this isn’t wisdom. It is in fact less wise even than those who fall immediately to the left or the right simply because it is left or right. Those individuals at least found out that their core values are Liberal or Conservative and thus assume that their opinion on a new issue would likely fall in line with those core values. Moderates just aim for the fence with their rear ends so they can sit on it.

The bias of moderateness is a copout. It’s an attempt to seem wise while being lazy. People who are stuck on being moderate are not intelligent; they just want you to think of them that way. To those of you who are legitimate Conservatives, who feel you must call yourself Moderate, please stop. You have made your decisions on values and a track record of success. Be proud of it! 42% of Americans agree with you. Even those of you who are Liberal, I don’t agree with you but at least have the guts to admit who you are. If you are truly convinced of Liberalism, stand up for it, don’t spin it and call it being Moderate to be palatable to those who don’t agree with you.

To those of you who automatically aim for the fence to sit on it…for Heaven’s sake please take the time to make an informed decision. Even if you become convinced of Liberalism you’ve been adult enough to take a stand. Landing in the center doesn’t make you wise, it makes you wishy-washy.


(1) In 2010, Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Dear President Obama - Raising Taxes IS NOT Cutting Spending

In a speech regarding the debt limit on Tuesday, President Obama referred to “ending tax cuts” as “reducing spending.” (1) In one sentence, the President has defined two of the biggest problems with modern Liberalism and two of the biggest problems with his Presidency.

First and foremost, the President honestly believes, or at least claims to believe, that when you keep more of your own money; it’s costing the government money. In reality, it is betraying the fact that Liberals think that your money inherently belongs to the government. They see a person who is in the top tax bracket not has having 35% of their income taken from them by the government but rather as a person whom government is benevolently allowing to retain 65% of that income. It’s a major issue that I will fight to the end. The truth is 100% of that money belongs to the individual, and while taxes remain a necessary evil, it is still that private citizen’s money that the government is spending. That’s one.

Two, the current tax rates have stayed in place now for over ten years. They are not tax cuts. They were a cut in 2001 and 2003 when current rates were reduced. They are now the current tax rates. For those of you from Palm Beach County: Maintaining the status quo rates is not a cut. A cut is a change. The current rates are status quo. The status quo is, by definition, not a change. Maintaining the current tax rates is not a cut at all. It is the status quo. To change those tax rates to a larger percentage is, by definition, not removing a cut but in fact it is raising taxes.

So when the President claims that raising taxes is cutting spending it is pure sophistry. The President is trying to spin his desire to raise taxes, to play class warfare and soak the rich who are already paying more than 50% of the tax burden (even though there isn’t enough income over the mystic $250,000 per year mark to run the government for even half a year). I’m not going to let him get away with that baloney.

Obama is still trying to claim we have a revenue problem. We don’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. We spent $1 Trillion in stimulus so unemployment wouldn’t go above 8%. Remind me what unemployment is now? We spend billions each year for the EPA to protect an environment that doesn’t need protection. It’s been caring for itself for centuries. Look at the Gulf of Mexico. It’s darn near at the pre-spill levels. No Liberal scientist was predicting that, yet the Earth has cleaned itself. We pay billions for the government to bail out companies that should have born the unfortunate results of their bad business practices and been forced to correct those failures.

The President wants to play politics and give this economy another dose of Liberal poison. I call on the Republican Party to say, once and for all, no…not just no but as Sarah Palin said “HELL NO!” You may not take money out of the pockets of business owners, money that could be used to invest in their businesses by hiring people, giving the unemployed badly needed jobs. You may not continue to borrow and spend so you can buy votes from people who don’t pay taxes to begin with. No. The overspending is done from both sides. It’s time to live within our means!

Dear President Obama: Stop lying to the American people. Raising taxes is not cutting spending. It’s raising taxes. Be honest, for once, and admit it.  You don't want to cut spending, you want to raise taxes.


(1) Obama Justifies Raising Taxes as Cutting Spending in Tax Code

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Reflections from the 4th of July

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. – Declaration of Independence

It was two hundred and thirty-five years ago yesterday that those words were officially ratified, unanimously, by the Continental Congress and our nation was born. It took the Constitution of the United States nearly ninety years after the nation’s birth to live up to that creed. It took over one hundred and eighty years for the Civil Rights Act and Brown v. Board of Education to ensure true equality in law. It took over two hundred years for the hearts and minds of Americans to truly believe these words.

Yet, in the hearts and minds of the vast majority of Americans, we have arrived at the place where we do indeed see all as created equal and judge people by their actions, not their skin tone. There are some who will claim racism as an excuse for why Conservatives dislike President Obama (ignoring the fact that one of the Tea Party’s favorite candidates is Herman Cain) or sexism as an excuse when Conservatives dislike various female politicians on the left like Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton (ignoring the fact that two of the Tea Party’s favorite candidates/potential candidates are Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin), the truth is America only sees people through their race or gender thanks to the Left reminding us of those differences.
Truth be told, the only real failures in America are due to failing our creed and our founding. We failed in the first ninety years by continuing slavery, but we righted that wrong through the blood of hundreds of thousands of Americans in the Civil War. We failed our creed by the continuance of segregation into the 1950s and 60s, but we righted that failure with Brown v. Board and the Civil Rights Act.

Today we’re in the middle of a correction, one that I believe we are winning as well, by correcting our failures to let freedom reign by allowing confiscatory taxes, regulations that stifle growth, and laws that tell people what foods they can eat or continuing to lecture people about legal habits that they, as adults, have chosen to continue with full knowledge of the dangers.

On this, the two hundred thirty-fifth anniversary of the United States, I want to encourage you who believe in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution with these words that a hero of mine wrote in 1993 after the election of Bill Clinton to the Presidency. I believe it holds true today as well:

We can win, my friends. But we can also choose not to win. It is up to us. Liberalism is failing, as I chronicle each day, and can’t beat us. Only we can make ourselves lose ground. We Conservatives must remain united, confident, on the offensive, and avoid the temptation to circle the wagons.

Liberalism is one of the most gutless choices one can make. It is easy to be a liberal. You just say yes to everything. Some guy wants to throw a rock through a window and blow up the building, you just say he has a right to do it because of some oppression he feels. You run around saying you care all day and do a few symbolic things, like conduct a bake sale and raise $150 to reduce the $4 Trillion national debt (2). Or you take your daughter to work with you one day of her life and claim she now is prepared to do battle with unfairly advantaged little boys.

Being conservative takes guts, though, because the dominant media will make fun of you, liberals will try to shut you up, leftist activists will try to intimidate you. As a conservative, you remind people that they are responsible for their fate, which is construed to be heartless, cruel and mean-spirited. As a conservative, you demand accountability while many want to go through life blameless and they’ll react angrily when you confront them with the truth. In short, you are a target when you are a conservative. We are winning, my good friends, but this skirmish will never be over, which is why you must remain confident, undaunted, and dedicated to your principles and ethics. We all must. – Rush Limbaugh, “The Way Things Ought to Be” (3)

Rush wrote that eighteen years ago. Since then, we’ve seen it play out. We chose to lose in 2006 and 2008 because the Republican Party chose to, as Rush said, “Circle the wagons.” As I’ve put it before, we chose to be the New Coke of political parties to the Democrat Pepsi (might as well just drink a Pepsi). That’s why we lost. We failed to be Conservative. In 2010, the GOP won a huge victory because we went back to being Conservative. We lived up to our country’s founding for the first time in years.

I want to encourage you on this two hundred thirty-fifth anniversary of our nation (the day after, actually) that we are winning and that we can continue to win, provided we continue to stand up for the things that Conservatism stands for: freedom, personal responsibility, and the Constitution of the United States. If we do, Barrack Obama will be a one-term President. If we do, I believe we will grow our majority in the House of Representatives and win the Senate. Only if we fail to be Conservative will we lose.

Republicans must remember who they are: We are the party who freed the slaves. We are the party who passed the Civil Rights Act. (Democrats try their best to claim that the “the Republicans of today are the Democrats of history and the Democrats of today are the Republicans of history.” It is, of course, an attempt to ignore their own poor history and lay claim to the GOP’s far more desirable history.)

We in the Tea Party must require that Conservatism out of the Republican Party in 2012. We must flock to the primaries and vote for Conservatives. We must not believe that a “moderate” is our best chance to win. It’s not. We’ve lost in national elections when we run moderates (see Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole and John McCain). We’ve won with Conservatism in national elections (see: Reagan, Bush 41 in ’88, Bush 43 in ’00 and ’04). We lost with moderates in ’76, ’92, ’06 and ’08. We’ve won with Conservatism in ‘80, ‘84, ‘88, ‘94, ‘98, ‘00, ‘02, ’04 and ’10.

If we force the GOP to live up to Conservatism, to the Constitution, we will win. History has proven that. Americans are by far more Conservative, with Liberalism in the small minority. Those numbers have changed in our favor over the last several years. My friends, we are winning. We must only choose to win.

(1) The Declaration of Independence

(2) Nearly twenty years later it’s our debt is $14 Trillion thanks to two Liberal Democrat Presidents and their spending and a Republican President who spent like a Liberal.

(3) “The Way Things Ought to Be” by Rush Limbaugh, Copyright 1992, 1993 by Rush Limbaugh. Published by Pocket Books, a division of Simon and Schuster Inc., 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020

Friday, July 1, 2011

Dissecting Obama Lies - $200k does not Make a Millionaire

The Left and Obama have stepped up the class warfare rhetoric lately, talking about wanting to raise taxes on “millionaires and billionaires.” Setting aside the fact that the President continues to neglect the simple truth that the money isn’t his to begin with, there is a major fact that is undeniable: $200,000 per year in salary does not a millionaire make. Deep within Obama’s usual treasure trove of lies is this sleight of hand, calling people who make only 1/5 of the “millionaire” level, at least what most of us think when we hear millionaire.

I’ll be honest, math wasn’t always my strongest suit, but I do know that $200,000 is not the same amount as $1,000,000, nor does that salary plus a house and a couple of cars equal $1,000,000 in net worth. When I hear “millionaire” I think of a person who lives in a mansion, owns a yacht, owns several cars, and has two or three vacation houses. That’s who Obama wants you to think of when he says “millionaires and billionaires.” That’s a legit statement for all billionaires, but not for the people Obama is calling millionaires. If you listen to what Obama says, he says he wants to raise taxes on individuals who make $200,000 per year or more.

The person who makes $200,000 per year is often someone of middle class beginnings who went to college, got a business degree, and worked their way up the corporate ladder with hard work. They own a nice house, maybe a four bedroom, two and a half bath colonial and a couple of nice cars. I know somebody like this, because he’s my uncle. He worked his way up the corporate ladder to own his own stock brokerage firm. He took a big risk and succeeded. The President wants you to think he’s a “millionaire.” When I look at him, I see a man who employs about a dozen people at his small firm and earns a good living for himself. He’s a man who has achieved the American dream through his own hard work.

This is the “evil, selfish” millionaire Obama is lying to you about: a hard working American success story. These are the people who the left keeps telling you won’t “pay their fair share.” The truth be told, 10% of Americans pay 50% of the tax burden, while another 51% of Americans pay zero taxes at all. They are paying more than five times their fair share. My uncle, for example, already pays over half of every dollar he makes in taxes in one form or another, whether it be the 35% he pays to the federal government, the 10% he pays to New York state, or his property taxes (I didn’t ask how much that is, seemed rude, to be honest…unlike federal and state taxes they aren’t public knowledge).

Do you know what he’d be doing with that money if he wasn’t paying it in taxes? He’d be spending it, or putting it in the bank where it would be used by the bank to give loans to others to buy homes, cars, or invest in businesses, or investing it in the stock market (he is a stock broker after all) or investing it into his own business, by hiring more people to expand his businesses productivity. He’d have more to give to charity as well. Instead, he’s giving over half his income to the government so $.65 on every dollar can be spent on bureaucracy. Aside from that little detail, it’s his money to begin with, not the government’s money.

This is the person Obama wants to soak to be able to continue his irresponsible spending. Let’s put aside the fact that if you confiscate every single dollar earned in America over $250,000 per year you’d still only be able to run the federal government for 5 months, not to mention the fact that you wouldn’t have left any money for the states or local governments and are completely squashing any desire to make a single penny over $250,000. The numbers don’t lie: There aren’t enough “millionaires and billionaires” in the country to pay for Liberal overspending. Its class warfare and it’s a lie. We don’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. The government spends too much. It’s time to stop spending, Mr. President. Your spending desires are out of control and must be stopped. No more lies, no more class warfare. It’s not your money, and even if it was there isn’t enough to support your spending habits. There’s no more of other people’s money for you to spend to buy votes.

There is greed in play right now. It’s on the part of government. Government is greedy. Government doesn’t want to make do with its fair share. The government receives more than enough money in taxes if it was spent efficiently. It’s not. It’s time to be responsible, Mr. President, and stop being greedy for other people’s money.

Finally, Mr. President, a person who earns $200,000 per year is not a millionaire. Stop lying to the American people. Stop making them think you’re trying to tax Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. You’re trying to overtax hard working Americans like my uncle so you can maintain your own greed. He’s not the greedy one. You are the greedy one. It’s not your money, so make do with what you already have. Stop borrowing; stop spending more than you have. Live within the same budget that American families live within now. Stop the lies, and govern responsibly.