A few days ago Hillary Clinton sat at the Brookings Institute and spoke on our new National [In]Security Policy. While doing so, she branched into domestic politics and said the following:
"The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues [America currently does] — whether it's individual, corporate or whatever [form of] taxation forms."
Now this is a very populist statement. It wins votes for your political party because most people don't consider themselves wealthy and they hear a statement like this and they think 'yeah, that's right! Government is on my side! It's those wealthy people hoarding all their money and not helping out us poor folk.' Most people will avoid the inconvenient fact that 50% of Americans pay no tax or that the wealthiest 1% of pay 39% of all taxes (the wealthiest 25% pay 84% of taxes). Hillary thinks that's not their fair share. If Hillary would read history she would discover what happens when you continue to increase tax rates on the wealthy.
Turn back the clock to the early 1920s. Do you want to know why the roaring '20s became the roaring '20s. Prior to 1920 Woodrow Wilson was president and his administration hit the wealthy with tax rate increase after tax rate increase with the result that with each rate increase the government actually collected fewer tax dollars from the wealthy. So when Warren Harding was elected he ordered his treasury secretary to commission a study looking into why that was happening. The findings aren't surprising. With each tax rate increase the wealthy sent their money into investments overseas where it wasn't taxed as highly. So between 1921 and 1926 Harding dropped the tax rate on the wealthy from 73% to 25% while lowering the rate on the poorest taxpayers from 4% to 1.5%. The result? The tax take from the wealthy TRIPLED! And the poorest taxpayers paid less. And the national debt fell by 33% and America saw unprecedented economic growth during the 1920s. Hmm. That's interesting isn't it? So, you're saying that lowering tax rates on the wealthy actually brings in MORE tax dollars from the wealthy? Yes. Because they'll start investing in America again.
Not a popular thing, though, for a politician to stand up and say 'hey, we need to lower taxes on the wealthy.' Actually, lowering taxes on everybody (yes, *gasp* even the wealthy) makes perfect sense. The wealthy are the ones running business. They are the job creators. Government talks about tax penalties for companies that take their jobs overseas. Well, what needs to happen is the government needs to realize that they have created a tax environment where it is much cheaper for business to do business in China or the Phillipines. Why doesn't government realize that lowering tax rates here, in America, would be an incentive for businesses to stay here. Well, that would require common sense and government has none of that. And it would also require our leaders to know American history and we see in Hillary's example that this is simply not the case.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Making Good on Promises of Transparency
Remember how we all cheered when, during the presidential campaign, Senator Obama promised to lead the most transparent administration ever? Well, I knew it was a lie but more naive and gullible people believed it and got all teary-eyed that, at long last, a true American leader had arrived. Suckers!
How's this for transparency - Obama has not held a White House press conference since July 22, 2009 as reported both by the Huffington Post (a liberal-leaning news source) and ABC News. He held 5 full conferences in the first six months of his term. That's right, it's been nearly a YEAR since he stood in the press room and took questions from the press. Now, if all transparency means to you is that the White House keep putting out well-crafted and scripted statements then I guess you would be okay with it. After all, Obama has been making lots of statements but, in the weirdest interpretation of the word "transparency" he has not actually shown the nerve to go off his teleprompter that's always attched to his hip to take questions from the press which is supposed to represent the people. I can imagine that the press have lots and lots of questions on the things that have been happening since last July. The Arizona law, the oil spill, the decision to put 1200 US troops on the Mexican border, the wars that we're fighting. The list of things that we're wondering about goes on and on and no, Mr. President, a tailored-to-your-agenda statement or speech will not suffice. Is this what you call presidential? Is this the mark of a good leader? A man who won't face the press and take questions? Several weeks ago Obama signed the Freedom of the Press Act and then promptly refused to take questions on anything. The irony there is too sweet and very telling.
I can understand why the president would want to stay on a very focused message without having that nagging press asking him hard questions. See, in a startling coincidence July 22, 2009 was just two days before Obama's approval rating sank below 50%. He started with an approval rating of 65% at the time of his inauguration. By late July he was below 50%. He now sits between 42-45%. Currently, only 23% strongly approve while 43% strongly disapprove. It seems this president is afraid of having to go off-prompter in front of the press. He might actually say what he's really thinking instead of what his speech writers tell him to say. And then, the man behind the curtain would finally be reavealed for all to see.
How's this for transparency - Obama has not held a White House press conference since July 22, 2009 as reported both by the Huffington Post (a liberal-leaning news source) and ABC News. He held 5 full conferences in the first six months of his term. That's right, it's been nearly a YEAR since he stood in the press room and took questions from the press. Now, if all transparency means to you is that the White House keep putting out well-crafted and scripted statements then I guess you would be okay with it. After all, Obama has been making lots of statements but, in the weirdest interpretation of the word "transparency" he has not actually shown the nerve to go off his teleprompter that's always attched to his hip to take questions from the press which is supposed to represent the people. I can imagine that the press have lots and lots of questions on the things that have been happening since last July. The Arizona law, the oil spill, the decision to put 1200 US troops on the Mexican border, the wars that we're fighting. The list of things that we're wondering about goes on and on and no, Mr. President, a tailored-to-your-agenda statement or speech will not suffice. Is this what you call presidential? Is this the mark of a good leader? A man who won't face the press and take questions? Several weeks ago Obama signed the Freedom of the Press Act and then promptly refused to take questions on anything. The irony there is too sweet and very telling.
I can understand why the president would want to stay on a very focused message without having that nagging press asking him hard questions. See, in a startling coincidence July 22, 2009 was just two days before Obama's approval rating sank below 50%. He started with an approval rating of 65% at the time of his inauguration. By late July he was below 50%. He now sits between 42-45%. Currently, only 23% strongly approve while 43% strongly disapprove. It seems this president is afraid of having to go off-prompter in front of the press. He might actually say what he's really thinking instead of what his speech writers tell him to say. And then, the man behind the curtain would finally be reavealed for all to see.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
A Culture of Dependence and Entitlement
America is sick. Our government is sick. Our people are sick. Did I mention that our government is sick? Our disease is a sense of entitlement and the notion that we can (and should) depend on the government for our basic needs. I like Mitt Romney. I'm not sure he's going to have an easy job playing the part of a true conservative in 2012 given his history with mandating health insurance as governor of Massachusetts, but I like him well enough to consider voting for him. He didn't give great speeches as a candidate in 2008. They always came off too polished, too manufactured. His one moment of greatness unfortunately came too late. In his withdrawal address he spoke from the heart and said things that a candidate would not be able to get away with. He summed up America's cultural sickness this way:
"The threat to our culture comes from within. The 1960’s welfare programs created a culture of poverty. Some think we won that battle when we reformed welfare, but the liberals haven’t given up. At every turn, they try to substitute government largesse for individual responsibility. They fight to strip work requirements from welfare, to put more people on Medicaid, and to remove more and more people from having to pay any income tax whatsoever. Dependency is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity. Dependency is a culture-killing drug—we have got to fight it like the poison it is!"
Dependecy is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity. I love that line. I think the social welfare programs that are currently in place in this country were most likely initiated with pure intentions - help the poor. But what was intended as a hand-UP has become a hand-OUT. As government found that it can control votes and voters by promising more and more freebies the programs ballooned into the out of control state that they are currently in. This is not a good thing. These programs are addictive to too many people. They are drugs. They destroy self-respect, they destroy the will to work and provide for yourself and they destroy the culture of a once-great nation. A nation that valued work. A nation that permitted failure because we understand that failure made you stronger. A nation that understood personal responsibility. Now I'm not opposed to the idea of welfare and WIC and medicaid and food stamps. I'm really not. I don't want congress to completely deep six these programs. I think there is a role for government in seeing to the basic needs of our poorest citizens. But it's out of control people. The systems are abused. There are food stamp recruiters for heaven's sake encouraging people to apply who, although not wealthy by any means, are getting by on their own. And now we've got Nancy Pelosi saying this in speaking about the recently passed health care bill:
"We see it as an entrepeneurial bill. A bill that says to someone if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care."
This is Nancy Pelosi!! This is the leader of the United States House of Representatives?! This woman, God help us, is third in succession to take over the presidency if something awful happened to President Obama and VP Biden! This is one of the most politically powerful women in the world and she's telling you to quit your job and focus on your creative passion, it's okay, we'll take care of you. (Ammon, you might want in on this. Nancy Pelosi is willing to pay your way while you write your novel.) I'm disgusted at where our country is. Her words disgrace the men and women who worked their tails off to make this country great. The men who came home from WWII and worked to make this country soar out of miserable debt are dishonored by what Pelosi is saying here. In fact, what Pelosi is saying here is about as un-American a thing as I have ever heard. Quit your job and focus on what you really love and we'll take care of you! Quit producing for this country and let us shoulder the weight! These are our leaders? I don't know which emotion this makes me feel more: sadness or anger.
And this is why we have a generation of Americans who feel they are entitled to everything from the government. It's because we have a government that has been telling Americans for an entire generation that we should be able to have everything that we need and that they will provide it.
I love working. I love my job. I love contributing. I love producing. I love paying my own bills with my own money. I love paying my private health insurance premium with my own money. I love paying for my own food with my own money. I love taking my car to the mechanic and paying for the repair. I love paying my own energy bills. I love paying my own phone bills. I love it. I love it. I love it. Herein lies true liberty. This is true freedom. I know that there are people who can't do all of that on their own. I might be right back in that position again someday who knows. For those people I'm glad there's a fail-safe in the government if necessary and I don't mind contributing to it. I think government programs should always be the last resort. Always the last resort, but I'm glad they are there. But America had better wake up and realize that we are degenerating into a culture that doesn't value work. A culture that doesn't see a need to put forth the effort because there's a government telling you they will take care of you.
Now if you'll excuse me I've got to go tell St. Jude that I'm quitting to focus on my lifelong dream of being a big league baseball player. I hope you don't mind picking up the bill for my family's health care. Thanks. I appreciate it.
"The threat to our culture comes from within. The 1960’s welfare programs created a culture of poverty. Some think we won that battle when we reformed welfare, but the liberals haven’t given up. At every turn, they try to substitute government largesse for individual responsibility. They fight to strip work requirements from welfare, to put more people on Medicaid, and to remove more and more people from having to pay any income tax whatsoever. Dependency is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity. Dependency is a culture-killing drug—we have got to fight it like the poison it is!"
Dependecy is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity. I love that line. I think the social welfare programs that are currently in place in this country were most likely initiated with pure intentions - help the poor. But what was intended as a hand-UP has become a hand-OUT. As government found that it can control votes and voters by promising more and more freebies the programs ballooned into the out of control state that they are currently in. This is not a good thing. These programs are addictive to too many people. They are drugs. They destroy self-respect, they destroy the will to work and provide for yourself and they destroy the culture of a once-great nation. A nation that valued work. A nation that permitted failure because we understand that failure made you stronger. A nation that understood personal responsibility. Now I'm not opposed to the idea of welfare and WIC and medicaid and food stamps. I'm really not. I don't want congress to completely deep six these programs. I think there is a role for government in seeing to the basic needs of our poorest citizens. But it's out of control people. The systems are abused. There are food stamp recruiters for heaven's sake encouraging people to apply who, although not wealthy by any means, are getting by on their own. And now we've got Nancy Pelosi saying this in speaking about the recently passed health care bill:
"We see it as an entrepeneurial bill. A bill that says to someone if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care."
This is Nancy Pelosi!! This is the leader of the United States House of Representatives?! This woman, God help us, is third in succession to take over the presidency if something awful happened to President Obama and VP Biden! This is one of the most politically powerful women in the world and she's telling you to quit your job and focus on your creative passion, it's okay, we'll take care of you. (Ammon, you might want in on this. Nancy Pelosi is willing to pay your way while you write your novel.) I'm disgusted at where our country is. Her words disgrace the men and women who worked their tails off to make this country great. The men who came home from WWII and worked to make this country soar out of miserable debt are dishonored by what Pelosi is saying here. In fact, what Pelosi is saying here is about as un-American a thing as I have ever heard. Quit your job and focus on what you really love and we'll take care of you! Quit producing for this country and let us shoulder the weight! These are our leaders? I don't know which emotion this makes me feel more: sadness or anger.
And this is why we have a generation of Americans who feel they are entitled to everything from the government. It's because we have a government that has been telling Americans for an entire generation that we should be able to have everything that we need and that they will provide it.
I love working. I love my job. I love contributing. I love producing. I love paying my own bills with my own money. I love paying my private health insurance premium with my own money. I love paying for my own food with my own money. I love taking my car to the mechanic and paying for the repair. I love paying my own energy bills. I love paying my own phone bills. I love it. I love it. I love it. Herein lies true liberty. This is true freedom. I know that there are people who can't do all of that on their own. I might be right back in that position again someday who knows. For those people I'm glad there's a fail-safe in the government if necessary and I don't mind contributing to it. I think government programs should always be the last resort. Always the last resort, but I'm glad they are there. But America had better wake up and realize that we are degenerating into a culture that doesn't value work. A culture that doesn't see a need to put forth the effort because there's a government telling you they will take care of you.
Now if you'll excuse me I've got to go tell St. Jude that I'm quitting to focus on my lifelong dream of being a big league baseball player. I hope you don't mind picking up the bill for my family's health care. Thanks. I appreciate it.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Supreme Drama
President Obama announced his choice for the individual who he would like to see in the vacant seat on the US Supreme Court. It's 50-year old Elena Kagan. Here's my early take on it. I'm sure she'll be confirmed after a proper and politicized confirmation process. The Republicans don't have enough senate votes to block the nomination even if they wanted to. They do have enough votes to filibuster an up or down vote but I doubt they will find it wise or necessary to do so. Really though this nomination won't change the make-up of the court at all. Kagan is likely a liberal individual with a political ideology that sits well with the president. Supreme court justices shouldn't be political but we all know that in high profile cases you can always predict how the individual justices will rule. Barack in the president so I do not begrudge him the opportunity of choosing a nominee with a liberal bent. We actually don't know if Kagan has a strong liberal bent but we will know in the coming days. Further, she replaces a liberal justice so if she does turn out to be liberal (99% chance that will be the case) it's not like she's turning the court further left. The court will remain quite moderate. Thankfully.
My one concern with Kagan so far is that she has never been a judge. She's never judged a single case. Thus, she has virtually no paper trail by which the senators can determine how she would come down on potentially hot issues. They've got nothing by which to judge how she would interpret the constitution. That will be a hurdle in her confirmation process but she should end up being nominated fairly quickly. After all, what other choice would you expect from a president who really did all he could to leave as small a voting record as possible during his time in the senate. Just looking at Kagan's resume she appears to be an intelligent, successful individual who knows law. What sort of a judge will she be? It makes me a little nervous to think that the first case ever judged in the career of a Supreme Court Justice will be a Supreme Court case. To put it in terms of baseball - as a manager, would you send somebody that's never swung a bat to the plate in the bottom of the ninth with your team down?
Surely there will be more to come on this topic in the next few weeks as we learn who Elena Kagan is.
My one concern with Kagan so far is that she has never been a judge. She's never judged a single case. Thus, she has virtually no paper trail by which the senators can determine how she would come down on potentially hot issues. They've got nothing by which to judge how she would interpret the constitution. That will be a hurdle in her confirmation process but she should end up being nominated fairly quickly. After all, what other choice would you expect from a president who really did all he could to leave as small a voting record as possible during his time in the senate. Just looking at Kagan's resume she appears to be an intelligent, successful individual who knows law. What sort of a judge will she be? It makes me a little nervous to think that the first case ever judged in the career of a Supreme Court Justice will be a Supreme Court case. To put it in terms of baseball - as a manager, would you send somebody that's never swung a bat to the plate in the bottom of the ninth with your team down?
Surely there will be more to come on this topic in the next few weeks as we learn who Elena Kagan is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)