Apr 162010
 

It's Our 'Movement' versus Their 'Movement'

Tea Party Are Us

A FEW WORDS ABOUT TEA PARTIES:

  • It’s not about race.
  • It’s not about political party.
  • It’s not transitory.

We could add that they’re also not about ideology, but that would be a lie.  The ideology is Americanism:  an abiding belief in the founding principles and that the current ‘regime’ has violated them.  Many pundits have already pointed out the disgrace of our government denouncing its dissenting citizens as “racists, homophobes and morons.”  With the cooperation of the usual suspects in the media, they’ve desperately tried to paint us (yes, I have attended) as violence-prone crazies, not unlike the fringe-ier militias.  More recently, as similar to the bombers of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma in ’95, or the guy who recently attacked an IRS office building with his private plane.

This is an old Saul Alinsky tactic, based on an old Marxist tactic:  tell a lie often enough and it becomes recognized as the truth.  Well, not only is the public catching on to this nonsense faster than these (unimaginative morons) would like, but their ‘movement,’ the one we foolishly elected, is now looking at our ‘movement.’ Ours started in 1776; theirs in 1917.  They want to use their revolution to defeat ours;  they are counter-revolutionaries.   They have history on their side when they assume that we can be dismissed; that we’ll get tired or distracted and go away.  Wrong.  Not this time.  The election of their movement and its attempt to collectivize our society in contravention of our society’s basis in the protection of the individual has gotten our attention.  We are focused and angry.

And how could our focus on Washington not reveal the open fester that is the bazaar our precious system has gradually become?  How could we not notice when our more candid elected officials tell us that it is no longer possible for them to change this disaster from within.  The very ‘Cui Bono’ politicians who are most profiting from the status quo are the one’s asked to change it.  And who can blame them.  They’ve each overcome great difficulties to learn and take advantage of a corrupt system; to be its beneficiaries.  Is it reasonable to ask them to give it up – to abandon their just reward?

And we’ve come to recognize it’s not just money.  Greed comes in many forms, and many of those who rail against our capitalist system for being greedy would do most anything to preserve their incumbency and the privileges it bestows.  The most effective one’s are happy to be passing laws that either directly benefit their campaign contributors or harass others into sending lobbyists to plead for relief (which ultimately produces more campaign contributors).  And shame on us for allowing these same incumbents to sit down in private sessions and draw lines on the map around those most likely to vote for them.  We used to pick our representatives; now they pick us (and our pockets).  Now that’s greed!

But there’s another kind of government greed, and that’s a total disregard for the cost to the taxpayer, or to the society as a whole, or to the individuals and institutions caught in a tax system perverted to maximize collections and social control from Washington.  When did we acquiesce to the notion that our tax system should be used to determine our social behavior?  When did we accept the notion that half of society, or more – there is no official limit – will have no responsibility for financing our many government programs?  Or the idea – by voters obsessed with the idea of ‘fairness’ – that an income tax (bad idea in itself) that goes up in rate at the same time as in volume is somehow ‘fair.’  (If you’re on the receiving end, it looks fair enough.)

We need a safety net for our most vulnerable citizens.  But Democrats are proudly declaring that 99% of Americans got tax refunds this year!  As in President Obama’s campaign, few wanted to point out that most of those tax ‘refunds’ were to people who were never required to pay income tax to begin with.  IOW, they got a check from the government, what the economists call a transfer payment.  I don’t recall voting on that, following the non-debate in Congress – do you?

So, the tea party will go on as long as we can maintain the Republic we have so carelessly allowed to fall into disrepair.  There’s a lot of work to do, and we may not prevail.  Our fabulous success as a free-market Republic dedicated to protecting the individual from government may disappear in a collectivist cloud – to be erased from memory in subsequent generations because our replacements could never afford to tell the truth about the magnificent thing we once were.

And, if you happen to still have a little more ‘Tea Party’ energy, here’s a fine article on the topic, less rant (me) and more fact and acute observation (her) from the fabulous Michelle Malkin, writing an Op-ed for Investor’s Business Daily, here.

[You can purchase the above-pictured, magnificent Patriotic Celebration Puzzle by artist Royce McClure at the Patriot Post Store, patriotshop.us, here.]

Print Friendly
Share
Apr 132010
 

Paying for Hope n' Change, One Purchase at a Time

European Taxation Soon!

OK, Here’s a Chicago Tribune Op-Ed by Consultant Dennis Byrne and his take on the European-style VAT sales tax that surfaced last year via Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. A tax that has been bandied about as a possibility to sop up the massive deficits that an already-broke federal government will need to add to our existing tax burden (Income, property, gasoline, entertainment, restaurant, etc.).  Now, former Federal Reserve Chairman and present Obama Administration financial consultant Paul Volcker allows as how it’s “not a toxic idea.”  This is a standard-length newspaper column, but in case you don’t get to the Trib’s site, I’ve pulled what look like the – literally – ‘money’ quotes for your instant edification.

Of greater surprise and importance about Democratic interest in the VAT is its punitive effect on poor and middle-class Americans. Liberals — at least old-school ones — long opposed sales taxes because the poor and middle class pay a greater percentage of their income for it than the rich. To put it bluntly, the regressive VAT leaves the poor and middle class holding the bag.

Here’s how: The tax is levied at each stage of production. A knitting mill, for example, pays a yarn-maker $1 for the yarn in each sweater. The mill then sells each sweater to Kmart for $3. The value added is $2 per sweater. If the VAT is 10 percent of the added value, the sweater-maker pays a 20-cent tax. Now comes the hitch: The sweater-maker may not have to pay the full 20 cents; when he pays his tax, he can deduct whatever everyone upstream in the supply chain, including the yarn-maker, paid in the VAT. For example, if the yarn-maker paid 10 cents for the value he added to the product, the mill can deduct that from the 20 cents he must pay.

Confusing, yes. But here’s how to keep it simple: Guess who pays the full cost of the VAT? The “end user.” That’d be you, the consumer. Unlike manufacturers, you can’t deduct the VAT paid by previous producers in the supply chain. You pay it all, because it is built into the price you pay for your sweaters, cars, appliances, etc. The sneaky part is that, unlike state and local sales taxes, the national sales tax is not separately listed on your receipt. So, it feels like you’re not paying the tax. From the viewpoint of the politicians, it’s a perfect tax because it is invisible.

You can read the whole Op-ed here.  If you want to really dig into the issue, here’s a link to a one-hour discussion on May 11, 2005, by the “President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform.”  Lastly, if you’re self-destructively wonky, here’s a report that’s a joint project of the Left-of-Center Urban Institute, the Brookings Institution and the New America Foundation.  You’ll need some ability to read business equations for some of it, but skimming over it’s 39 pages, you might glean some idea of where this administration may want to go with this, and what they believe the trade-offs would be (Payroll and Corporate Income Taxes).  And, it turns out, there is one more entry that is more accessible and comprehensive than either of the others.  It’s from the conservative American Enterprise Institute and I’m adding it here so that sometime in the distant future, when I really want to get my head around this, I can just hit the link.  You can do it now.  Enjoy.

Print Friendly
Share
Mar 312010
 

FDR,ObamaCare & States' Rights

YouTube Preview Image

The Judge (yes, he’s a real judge) gives us a heads-up, straight from the Constitution – a short video that’s a good start for a quick exploration of this ObamaCare repeal issue.  FYI, the Interstate Commerce Clause and General Welfare provisions are not valid bases for imposing this legislation on the states and individuals.  To find out why, we do some historical, political and legal analysis.  So, either strap yourself in or risk emotional and intellectual whiplash.

First up is our link to a powerful look at how we’ve been here before, how it turned out, and the guidance offered for ourselves and the current administration.  J.R. Dunn at The American Thinker had a well-commented-upon post up yesterday called The Supreme Court and FDR’s Power Grab. Now, I know a lot of you are going “Here we go again, the old Conservative animus against FDR.”  Not so…at least not predominantly.  This is thoughtful, relevant history that can be easily checked out.  I urge you to take a look – it’s a fun and informative read.

Next, a short, healthy dose of Public Policy research by The Foundry, a policy blog from the conservative Heritage Foundation. They dig a little deeper than Judge Napolitano, especially regarding constitutional limitations on federal power.

None of these clauses—or any others found in the Constitution—gives Congress the power to create a government healthcare system.

The “General Welfare” clause gives Congress the power “To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.”  This clause is not a grant of power to Congress (as constitutional law professor Gary Lawson has shown). It is a limit to a power given to Congress. It limits the purpose for which Congress can lay and collect taxes.

Finally, a contemporary take by political analyst Dick Morris on the steps necessary to repeal and how he weighs its chances of success.  In a blog post for Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government, he has a post titled Take Back Congress to Stop ObamaCare. As you would expect, his is not the conventional, angry take on how to fight the constitutionality of this bill.

The Obama health care bill was an authorization measure which established a program and set down its parameters. But authorization bills are not appropriations. Each year the Congress must act on appropriations for each department and agency in the government. If no funds are appropriated, nothing can be spent.

Just in case you are out of time, patience or interest and decide to not go read this very short piece by Morris, I have to confess I really got a kick out of his Uncle Sam poster.  So, through the magic of blog technology, here it is:

Morris is Serious About This

That’s pretty much of a wrap.  We’ll be talking about this for the next four to six years, by which time the Democrats expect we will be totally (as in totalitarian) embracing ObamaCare in all its particulars, and the notion of repeal will be a small footnote in the history books.  Or not

Print Friendly
Share
Mar 212010
 

President Obama Sits Stunned

Is ObamaCare Worth This Much??

Long after the Great Health Care Reform Debate of 2009 & ’10 has become part of the history that goes untaught in our pathetic public school system, this six minutes of video will inform.  Not only the ‘emperor’s clothes’ blast of reality concerning the health care numbers that had been fronted by the Democrats, but a priceless lack of reaction from a normally voluble and argumentative President.  If you haven’t watched this on You Tube, already – and you really care about accuracy in this issue – spend a few minutes, and prepare to dazzle your friends!

If this clip is way too Republican and one-sided for you, take a look at our recent Post linking to a lecture by the President’s health care economist, titled “ObamaCare’s Planner Here,” starring MIT prof Jonathan Gruber.  Enjoy!

{video}httpvh://www.youtube.com/watch?v=211odCXDqz8

Print Friendly
Share
Mar 192010
 

Better Buy some Health Insurance

It just gets better.  We’ve all known for a while that the IRS is to be given authority over compliance with the Individual Mandate Tax (IMT), but it may not have been obvious to you that it means they will be responsible for ascertaining individual compliance.  Representatives Dave Camp (R-MI), Ranking Member, and Charles Boustany (R-LA) of the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Ways and Means, have just issued a nine page report that sheds light on some of the scary details.

It occurs to me that if we were to ever encounter some miraculous policy-making window that would allow us to debate alternatives to the current income tax system, these additional IRS powers (and huge expansion of personnel) would make the decision even more difficult than now; but maybe someone in D.C. has already had the same thought.

Here’s my transcript of their Executive Summary:

HIGHLIGHTS OF NEW IRS AUTHORITY


  • IRS agents verify if you have “acceptable” health care coverage
  • IRS has the authority to fine you up to $2,250, or 2% of your income (whichever is greater) for failure to prove that you have purchased “minimum essential coverage”
  • IRS can confiscate your tax refund
  • IRS audits are likely to increase
  • IRS will need up to $10 billion to administer the new health care program this decade
  • IRS may need to hire as many as 16,500 additional auditors, agents and other employees to investigate and collect billions in new taxes from Americans
  • Nearly half of these new individual mandate taxes (IMT) will be paid by Americans earning less than 300% of poverty ($66,150 for a family of four)

SPECIAL EXEMPTION

Democrats prohibit the IRS from imposing these taxes and penalties on illegal immigrants

The full report can be viewed here.

Print Friendly
Share