Dear GOP: When Will You Fight THIS Fight?

Over the last several years with the Republican Party, it's constantly been, "We're going to cave on THIS particular issue, (just this one time) and then we're REALLY going to fight NEXT TIME!"

Unfortunately for America, the moment Next Time becomes This Time there's some other "just this one time" to excuse not fighting. Washington Republicans cave yet again because they don't want to be blamed for what happens next by the Left's willing accomplices in the Drive-By Media.

It happened in December as the Fiscal Cliff approached. The GOP let President Obama raise taxes for reasons that no math on Earth can explain (although supposedly that $65 Billion was going to solve a $10 Trillion projected ten-year deficit) without extracting real, meaningful spending cuts. That day we were told "just wait until the Debt Ceiling battle!" Now we're at the Debt Ceiling battle and the Republican House has passed a debt limit increase, albeit a short-term one, that doesn't require cuts.

Friends, I want to be optimistic. I truly do. I want to believe that come May the Republican House will refuse to pass a budget without meaningful cuts. I'd also like to believe that someday I'll make $10 Million a year and live in a mansion.  But I live here in the Real World and what I shake my Magic 8-Ball I see this:

I think I speak for a whole lot of conservatives when I say there won't be a whole lot of chances left for the Republican Party.  Frankly, this could be their last one. It's time to do something real. The spending our nation has continued is flat out unsustainable. That's a fact. Furthermore, there is no evidence from history to show that Obama's Keynesian spending  will all of a sudden begin to work, especially since it hasn't worked yet. (Don't let liberals tell you about the New Deal bringing us out of the Great Depression. That was accomplished only by the outbreak of World War II and government spending as a CONSUMER not as an investor.)

It's time to get your act together, GOP. Now. Not next time.

Barack Obama and the Kindergarten Compromise

Compromise. It's a word we've all known since early childhood. When two people have a disagreement, it's important to compromise, find a middle ground, one where both parties get SOME of what they want.

It's the word we keep hearing repeated in the Fiscal Cliff discussions. The Left and their willing accomplices in the Drive-By Media keep demanding the Republican party compromise and let Barack Obama raise taxes (even though it won't help an ounce in solving the problem).

It sure sounds like the GOP is the unreasonable one, right? They just won't compromise!

Except there's one problem: The GOP is trying to solve the problem. The REAL problem. Our massive deficits. President Obama clearly isn't interested in solving this problem, because he hasn't put forward any real solutions. Just "raise taxes on the rich" in amounts that will pay for the government to run for a whopping eight days. (We borrow 35% of our budget annually, which means we have to borrow money to cover just over 127 days a year. Obama has no plan to cover the other 119 days of borrowing.)  President Obama apparently is only interested in raising taxes to punish the wealthy. There is no other explanation.

This, of course, goes unreported in the Drive-By Media. They present it simply as two sides with reasonable deficit solving solutions that just need to meet in the middle to pass a compromise. It's a kindergarten mentality.  Too many Neighborhood Liberals and Moderates buy into this presentation of the story. Two sides, equally valid options, one refuses to budge.

They present the problem this way:

• The Bush Tax Rates (they've been in place twelve years, so calling them "cuts" is pure sophistry) are about to expire for everyone.
• The Republican Party wants to extend the rates for everyone.
• The Democrat Party wants to raise tax rates on the top 2% of wage earners.
• A reasonable compromise is raise taxes on the top 2% and extend the rates for everyone else.

What's REALLY happening is a completely different problem. We have a spending problem. The nation is spends 35% more than we have in the bank each year.

The Drive-By Media is presenting this as if it were a kindergarten class compromise. Let's pretend there are two boys in a class. One is named Buford. The other is named Baljeet.  Here's how the Drive- By

So here's the problem and solution in brief form, as the Drive-By Media is currently presenting it:

• Baljeet is playing with a toy firetruck during the class' 30 minutes of recess. 
• Buford would also like to play with the toy firetruck.
• The teacher suggests a compromise, wherein each boy gets to play with the toy firetruck for 15 minutes of recess.

Except, that's not the REAL problem at hand. Here's what the problem REALLY looks like:

• Baljeet has lunch money.
• Buford wants all Baljeet's lunch money. 
• Baljeet does not want to give Buford any of his lunch money.
• The teacher suggests a compromise, wherein Baljeet gives half his lunch money to Buford.

Does anyone thing Baljeet would be wrong to refuse this compromise? Of course not! The compromise ignores the real problem!  The real problem is a bully is demanding something that isn't his from another child. Buford isn't entitled to Baljeet's money. Giving him what he demands doesn't solve the real problem, which is that Buford is a bully.

The fact is 100% of the lunch money is Baljeet's and none if it belongs to Buford. Buford has no right to take it. (Read into that what you wish.) The teacher isn't solving the problem. One side in this problem is very wrong, and his name is Buford. One side is very right, and his name is Baljeet,. Baljeet shouldn't be asked to enter into such a foolish compromise. The teacher should be fired for suggesting it.

That is precisely what's happening in our Fiscal Cliff debate. Here is the problem and solution in brief form:

• The Bush Tax Rates (they've been in place twelve years, so calling them "cuts" is pure sophistry) are about to expire for everyone.
• The nation has to borrow money to run the government for 127 days. That equals borrowing $1.3 trillion each year.
  
• The Democrat Party wants to raise tax rates on the top 2% of wage earners, which will raise a mere $85 billion each year. (This covers only 8 days of deficit spending.)
• The Republican Party wants to extend the rates for everyone, because our problem isn't lack of revenue, but too much spending, and instead wants to cut spending.
• The Drive-By Media is saying "Just let the Democrats raise taxes on the top 2% and extend the rates on the other 98% of wage earners" as a fair compromise.

This supposed compromise ignores the real problem: Excessive spending.  A false premise is being presented as a red herring. The important detail of the real problem is being left out. The fact is the Democrats want to raise taxes because...ummm...uhhh...I don't know, reasons? Other than punishing the rich, there is no explainable reason. 

So what we have is a kindergarten view of compromise: Just have both sides give some. Forget what the two sides want. That doesn't matter. Just compromise. Even if one side's desires are beyond reason.

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

NYT Accusing GOP of Sabotage on Debt Limit: Are you KIDDING me???

Sometimes even the New York Times finds a way to shock me with their blatant partisan lies.  The latest narrative from the Democrat party and the Drive-By Media has begun: "Republicans are deliberately sabotaging American job growth so that they can win in 2012."  It's so incredulous a claim I'm irritated that I have to even discuss it, especially to make a defense against the party who has so desperately attempted to hang on to policies that are damaging to the country and financially not feasible.  The article in question is dripping with bias and loaded questions.  Let's go to the article in question:

The Democrats, at least, acknowledged that reality at the bargaining table by saying that along with the cuts the Republicans cherish, there would have to be increases in revenue — an end to unnecessary tax loopholes for corporations or the rich. ]

First off, this presentation makes it sound like both cuts in government spending and "revenue increases" are both relatively good things for the country.  They aren't.  The business climate in America is already strained and business owners are taking their businesses elsewhere, costing workers badly needed jobs.  The reason, despite the Drive-By Media's attempts to paint business owners as "greedy," is actually because taxes cut into the legitimate and reasonable profit requirements of business owners to make the risk of business ownership worth it.

Increases in revenue, by the way, is simply a code word for raising taxes.  As I have demonstrated on multiple occasions here, additional revenue is not the problem.  Again, we go to the history of the Reagan years.  Prior to Reagan, the Democrat congress was spending 180% of the tax dollars received.  Reagan doubled tax revenues by reducing the top marginal rate from 70% to 28%.  Simple math shows that if you need 80% more revenue to reach a balanced budget and you receive 100% more revenue, you ought to have a 20% surplus, right?  Yet even with 100% more revenue, the Democratic Congress (which controlled the purse strings, remember) continued to spend 180% of that new, twice as large amount!

In short, friends, we do not have a revenue problem. If we had a revenue problem, the solution would be to CUT taxes to spur economic growth, leading to more people paying taxes as a result of businesses growing and hiring new people (works every time it's tried).  No, like in the 80s, we have a SPENDING problem.  As Ronald Reagan once said "We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much.”  We are not going to fix our problem by raising more revenue.  When you try to raise more revenue, it never works because business owners don't just sit there and accept those higher taxes cutting into their profits.  They often move to another country because they aren't serfs!  They don't belong to the land.  Government can't force business owners to continue to employ the same number of people when tax rates confiscate large portions of their profits, or to not move their business to another country to avoid those confiscatory rates.

Those demands were modest — too modest — and Vice President Joseph Biden Jr., who is leading the talks, said they were making progress. But any compromise at all proved too much for the Republicans.

Again more spin, calling the Democratic demands "modest."  They aren't modest, they are poison to an already ill economy!  Why should the GOP compromise and allow the Democratic party to damage the country further?  We know that raising taxes on businesses causes those businesses to leave the country and costs American jobs.  Why should we compromise on that?  It's poison for the economy!  How do you compromise with poison, exactly?  Do you compromise and say "you may not put enough poison in my food to kill me, but I'll compromise and accept enough poison to make me violently sick?"  OF COURSE NOT!  The Democrat policies proposed will hurt the country, so the Republicans, in good conscience, must not compromise with this poison!

But at least 11 hard-line Senate Republicans have already said they will oppose any deal that does not include a balanced-budget amendment — a nonstarter for Democrats — and Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, said this week that all revenue increases are the same as raising taxes and are unacceptable.

And here we have the inevitable explanation of the real problem:  Democrats consider a balanced budget amendment a nonstarter.  In other words, legally requiring the government to spend only what money they actually have, a horrible and inconceivable budgetary policy that basically every American family has to deal with, is a nonstarter.

Let's get serious for a moment:  The Republican party is not being obstructionist here.  They are tackling a person who is about to eat a poisonous morsel of food in order to stop them from taking a bite.  Might you give that person who you've tackled a bruise in the process?  Maybe, but I'd rather a bruise than suffering from a major case of deadness thanks to ingesting poison.  People need jobs.  By allowing the Democrat party to take more money out of the business budgets of business owners is going to cause more layoffs and less hiring, which is more bad news for the economy. 

The Times, true to it's usual modus operandi (that'd be "regular way of doing things," for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL) is playing political games, doing it's best to present the Democrats as nice people asking for reasonable compromises and the Republican party as blow-hard jerks insisting on their own way. (How DARE you tackle that poor person!  You gave them a bruise!)  The truth, of course, is that the GOP is trying to block damaging policies from passing.

Democrats and the Media will claim that Clinton was able to balance the budget with tax increases, ignoring the truth of history.  First of all, credit for the 90s balanced budgets belongs far more to the Contract with America and the Republican Party than Clinton, and secondly the balanced budget was created not by raising taxes but by CUTTING SPENDING (see: "The Era of Big Government is over").  Liberals won't tell you that because they want you to believe that a) it is possible to raise enough revenue to pay for their overspending and b) even if "a" was true, that it is moral to tax and tax and tax to pay for their overspending and c) even if "a" and "b" were true, that tax increases would result in static spending (which it NEVER does) by the wealthy.

Democrats don't want to let go of their ability to buy votes.  They want to keep taxing and borrowing so they can spend on social programs to reward the people who vote for them.  They are offering the country poison at a time when the economy is violently ill.  The Republican Party should absolutely not compromise with this poison, but instead should stop that poison from being ingested at all costs. Period.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall Source - New York Times:  Republican's Temper Tantrum

The Sky Isn't Falling: Reality of the Debt Ceiling

The Debt Ceiling battle is officially on in Washington. Last night, the House of Representatives went on record voting against raising the Debt Ceiling.

Democrats and Activist Liberals are (predictably) claiming that if we don't raise the debt ceiling the "full faith and credit of the United States will fail." As usual, Liberals are telling us that the sky will fall and crush everything we hold dear if we don't permit them to spend, spend, and spend some more money that we don't have. Deep down inside this insanity is one of the oldest plays in the Liberal playbook: "If we don't (insert massive spending plan here) then the economy will crash, America will fail to be a nation, we will have fires, floods, earthquakes, dogs and cats will begin living together...mass hysteria!" They even use this posthumously when their policies don't work (see the Stimulus), that if we HADN'T acted, things would've been far worse. Neither one ever has to be proven, so they can claim it all they want without concern.
While we're at it, history is being ignored. In 1985, Congress allowed the debt ceiling to stand pat for nearly three months after the limit was hit. In 1993, more than four months passed after the limit was hit before it was raised. In 2002, again, three months after the limit before the limit was raised. In neither of those cases did the world end. Liberals, of course, care not for history, because it is universally devastating for their case.

Americans largely oppose the raising of the debt ceiling by a rate of 47% to 19% who approve of it (sadly, 34% don't know enough to make a decision). (1) The reason, I believe, is simple. Americans live on budgets. I could not afford to spend 5% above my income via credit, and I know each of you, if you're financially wise, will agree. (The ones who aren’t financially wise and do live above your means; you’ll find out in the coming years that I’m right.) Yet the government consistently spends more 50% above its income and wants to be allowed to borrow more and more to feed their insatiable spending habit.

You see, that's the real problem. In 2010, the Federal Government had total tax receipts of $2.163 Trillion. That's right, over $2 trillion in tax dollars were received. However, the government spent a total of $3.456 Trillion. (2) After some quick math, we find out that they spent 59% MORE than they received in taxes. Can you imagine spending 59% MORE than you take in on an annual basis?

Quick object lesson: Consider a young college graduate in their first real job who is making $30,000 per year. If that person were to spend at the same rate the government spends, that person would be living on $47,700 per year! Considering the current interest rates on credit cards are at 20%, paying only the interest on that debt would come to $9540 per year! Does that sound insane? Well guess what, that's what the government is doing. Except the government is doing that with trillions of dollars instead of thousands, and doing it with somebody else’s money…namely ours! That type of spending is absolutely ridiculous!

I'm a realist, my friends. I recognize that we can't simply decide to go down to precisely the amount of gross receipts immediately. I realize that the only things that are outside of mandatory spending are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. I also realize those items can be reduced significantly to a point where they are soluble (that's able to be maintained for more than the next ten years, for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL). That said, the GOP is doing the right thing thus far by demanding not just billions in cuts but trillions in cuts before the debt ceiling can be raised. Similarly, our friend who was listed above, in order to fix his financial house, would need to now live on only $20,460 of his income to be able to fix the problem. Oh, and don’t forget, he’s paying taxes on that salary too, so he has even less of that money. Considering the level of his prodigal living, that individual would need to create a plan to pay off that debt in say, five years. The Federal government must do the same.

Here is the legitimate practicality of that stance: It requires us to deal with both the long term and short term necessities of the situation. We have to cut spending to ensure that we don't completely run out of money in the future. We also need to not try to do it one fowl swoop, because included in the “discretionary spending” are such legitimate necessities as defense.

At the moment, the Democratic Party doesn't want to admit the candy is already gone from the piñata, preferring to instead continue to whack at it in greater desperation, hoping for not just a stray butterscotch candy might fall out but rather to find that there is another compartment not yet opened with many pounds of fresh candy. That's not the case. The money isn’t there. More importantly, the money does not belong to the government, it belongs to taxpayers.

The truth is, as I’ve said since the beginning on this blog, business owners are not serfs. They are not going to simply stay put and pay taxes through the nose just to make Liberals happy. Rather, they will find a way to protect their profits one way or another. The big businesses will move to another state or even another country where the business climate is better. The smaller businesses will have to lay off workers (which means fewer tax dollars from their employees), or close their doors. That is the reality. Liberals can claim pie in the sky clichés like the rich “can afford it” all they want; the wealthy are not going to just hand over their money without any attempt at self preservation. That self preservation has historically meant moving their operations outside of the United States.

Ronald Reagan claimed famously that we don’t have trillion dollar debts because we tax too little, we have trillion dollar debts because we spend too much. Liberals don’t want to admit the piñata is empty, because it would hurt their ability to buy votes with benefits. Yet it comes back to the fact that the money does not belong to them, that they don’t have a right to just take it because they declare a need.

Furthermore, we don’t NEED to spend that much above and beyond. We don’t need to spend millions on Cowboy Poetry or on National Public Radio to spew Liberal ideas. We don’t have the money to pay for the arts with taxpayer dollars, not when we’re borrowing so that we can spend 59% more than we take in.

For the time being, while we work toward a balanced budget, there may be a need to borrow SOME for the necessities. That said it should ONLY be for necessities! In the past, I’ve been forced to spend above my budget using credit cards. When I was fresh out of college and just starting out, sometimes I was forced to spend on my credit cards to repair my car when it needed it and the cash wasn’t available, or to buy groceries when the cupboards were empty. I have not used a credit card to buy a stereo or a television that isn’t in the budget. I simply couldn’t do it then and I don’t do it now. I can’t buy those things on a credit card (at 20% interest rate to boot, and I have good credit).

Liberals don’t want to say goodbye to their Boss Tweed style favors for votes on a national scale. That is what this is about. The Republican Party, at least for now, has told the Democratic Party that they can stick it; you can’t borrow more money to give away. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, when the GOP drops the ball, we need to hammer them, but when they are carrying the ball and advancing toward the end zone, we need to get their back. At this moment, they’re doing right by the taxpayers.

To you Liberals who read this blog: The sky is not falling. The Democratic Party has played you for a fool when they have previously claimed that the sky would fall if we didn’t pass (insert massive spending package here). It never has, because it’s an ad hoc argument. It’s baloney, quite frankly. It’s time to get our spending in check. The piñata is empty, and the candy in the piñata doesn’t belong to you Liberals to begin with. It’s time to start living within our means.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Americans Oppose Raising Debt Ceiling, 47% to 19%

(2) US Government Tax Data