Let's put the idiotic "Tax Cuts for the Rich" bleat into context

The problem is NOT "too little revenue, we can't afford the tax cuts". the problem CLEARLY is too much spending, whether "progressives" like it or not.

.....from Daniel Mitchell at Cato, who adds:

"Amazing how the problem becomes obvious when you look at real numbers and don’t get trapped into using “baseline” math..."

"Night of the Living Debt"

(via Conservative NC)

Your Obama "stimulus" at work

"Unemployment Likely Increased to 9.7 Percent in September"

Imagine that!

Noteworthy:

"The amount of unemployment we’ve already got and the slowness of recovery lead to predictions that we could have 9-plus percent unemployment even through the next presidential election."




Things are not looking too peachy in Obamaland, are they?

"Bernanke : Defict threats are 'real and growing' "

Ya think?:

Still, Bernanke doesn't get it. He doesn't think Obamaland needs to stop the on-going crony capitalism spending campaign:

"Bernanke, in a speech prepared for delivery, reiterated his belief that the government shouldn't raise taxes or slash spending now because the economic recovery is still too fragile."

It could be worse. He could be advocating for massive tax increases (over and above the expiration of the Bush tax cuts), and massive increases in spending, as advocated by leftist agenda clowns who masquerade as economists, like Paul Krugman.

"Emancipation From What...Capitalism?"

Brian Wesbbury and Bob Stein:

" 'In the year 1000, the average infant could expect to live about 24 years. A third died in the first year of life. Hunger and epidemic disease ravaged the survivors. By 1820, life expectation had risen to 36 years in the west, with only marginal improvement elsewhere. After 1820, world development became much more dynamic. By 2003, income per head had risen nearly ten-fold, population six-fold. Per capita income rose by 1.2 per cent a year: 24 times as fast as in 1000-1820. Life expectation increased to 76 years in the west and 63 in the rest of the world.'

Angus Maddison, Contours of the World Economy.

To paraphrase - for 1800 years, progress was virtually non-existent; then it accelerated sharply. It takes a severe case of denial for someone to ignore these lessons of history. What they show is that when freedom prevails, the ingenuity and inventiveness of people creates incredible wealth. This is the true source of improvement in the human condition.

The US Constitution was crucial in the process of freedom. It established a new country with protected property rights. The Declaration of Independence declared the “unalienable Rights” of 'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.' It also declared that 'whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government….'

Yes, the US has its history with slavery and women’s suffrage, but the Civil War, and 13th and 19th Amendments to the Constitution fixed those wrongs. It wasn’t easy, but the system worked. No system of social and economic organization has done more to lift living standards than the US system of 'free market capitalism.' No system of governance has improved the lives of so many people.

So, why is this system under attack? Have we uncovered problems with free market capitalism that are the equivalent of slavery and women’s suffrage?

President Obama thinks so. In a speech last week, he called belief in capitalism 'blind faith.'He said this philosophy, of letting people 'fend for themselves' has 'failed.' He added that “people are frustrated, they’re anxious, they’re scared about the future. [But] now is not the time to quit....We’ve been through worse.... It took time to free the slaves. It took time for women to get the vote.'

This is the Progressive’s mantra – 'Capitalism is unjust, unfair...A new system must be put in its place and this takes time.' There is only one problem with this logic. It’s not really progress and it has never, ever worked. Today’s progressives are the ones that ask for blind faith. They want people to believe that they have finally figured out how to do it right

But this is just wishful thinking. Every economic system, no matter how it is described, is a system that distributes resources among competing interests. In a Progressive system, government officials control this process. In a free market system, resources flow to those who use them best to improve the lives of others. The market votes every day on these products and services and the successful ones are given more resources. To prove how fluid this system is, more businesses fail each year than succeed.

This is not true of government. Once started, government programs rarely fail. The system perpetuates them with more money and more resources. The waste increases over time until it becomes so overwhelming that the entire system fails. The Roman Empire, the Soviet Union, Greece, California and Illinois are all the evidence needed.

The real problem with the economy these days it that we have moved too far away from free market capitalism. As government spending has increased, so has unemployment. This is not a mystery; the bigger the government, the smaller the private sector and the less dynamic the economy. If there is any emancipation needed these days it’s from the government, not from capitalism."

"Cafeteria Constitutionalists", and the coming rejection of relativism

Lisa Fabrizio, at Intellectual Conservative:

" America is now experiencing this inclination of a large number of citizens to disregard the founding principles that underpin our nation in favor of their own ideas of what our government is and should do; all the while insisting that they support and defend our Constitution. It is at times like these that non-Catholics share with us our frustration when reading the opinions of our brethren who pick and choose which, if any, precepts of the Faith they might respect.

...Those who do not understand how liberals can claim to love America while disdaining the simple and direct strictures of the Constitution, need only look to so-called Christian sects that support and even employ as preachers, practicing homosexuals and others living in direct contravention of specific biblical admonitions against same. In the case of the Anglican Church, this fact alone is driving many true believers into the arms of Rome; in much the same way as the deliberate flaunting of our Constitution by the Obama Administration is fattening the membership of the Tea Parties with otherwise non-political Americans.

The reason is the same: there remain in this world people who cling to eternal principles as rock-solid and worthy of adherence, while there are others who proceed from the nauseating viewpoint that all progress is good and we must therefore change with the times. Contrary to the views expressed in the 1960s, this way of life is not liberating, but is every bit as stifling as the chains of any tyrant. As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger warned shortly before his election as Vicar of Rome, 'We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires. '"

Indeed.

Read the whole thing.

Good policy, good politics

Michael Barone@NRO:GOP Battle Cry: Repeal Obamacare, Cut Spending:

"... the macroeconomy is in a very different place than it was during the Gingrich era. Then, we were well launched into an economic recovery, one aided by Republicans’ partial victories on budget and tax issues. Money didn’t seem scarce, and shutting down the government seemed extreme.

Today, we are in, if not an official recession, at least an agonizingly slow recovery. And if Democrats complain that it’s unfair for government and public employees to be limited to what they got in 2008, Republicans can reply that an awful lot of their constituents would be very happy to go back to the income levels and the housing equity and the 401(k) balances they had in 2008.

Everyone has been suffering. Why should government be exempt? Wouldn’t it function better if it went on a diet?"

Most of us are tired of hearing the Democrat whining--

"But the public LOVES health care reform when they are told about the individual provisions!"

"Tax cuts for the rich are eeeeeeeeeeevil!"

"The Stimulus worked, but we need more!"

"Millions of jobs saved or created! Unemployment numbers increase? What unemployment numbers increase?"

.....and on and on and on and on and on.

No, there are no good reasons to close our borders, right?

Small Business and Obamacare

As John Goodman describes it, these are stunning poll results

There's more of this sort of thing to come.

MUCH more.

November is coming. It's time to take political advantage of a crisis, just like the Dems/Lefties/"Progressives"/Sorosites/Unions/Media and every babbling hopey changey blogger did in 2008.

The only difference will be that we are not the ones who created this crisis in the first place. The afore-mentioned fools are STILL the culprits.

Why Obama's policies are counter-productive

Robert Samuelson, at The Locker Room:

"Confidence is crucial to stimulating consumer spending and business investment, and Obama constantly subverts confidence. In the past year, he’s undone some of the good of his first months. He loves to pick fights with Wall Street bankers, oil companies, multinational firms, health insurers, and others. He thinks that he can separate policies that claim to promote recovery from those that appeal to his liberal base, even when the partisan policies raise business costs, stymie job creation, or augment uncertainty—and, thereby, undermine recovery. His health-care “reform” makes hiring more expensive to employers by mandating insurance coverage; the moratorium on deepwater drilling kills jobs. No matter.

Obama’s proposal to increase taxes on personal incomes exceeding $250,000 ($200,000 for singles) is the latest example of his delusional approach. It satisfies the liberal itch to 'get the rich.' Well, the rich and most other taxpayers will ultimately have to pay higher taxes to help close budget deficits. But not now. Raising taxes in a weak economy doesn’t make sense. Just consider: these affluent households represent almost a quarter of all consumer spending, says Zandi. Richard Curtin, director of the University of Michigan’s Survey of Consumers, says his data suggest that uncertainty about the extension of the Bush tax cuts has already caused affluent buyers to cut their spending.

Some small businesses would also be affected, because many (sole proprietorships, partnerships, and subchapter S corporations) file their taxes on personal returns. Higher taxes would discourage hiring and expansion. No one knows by how much, but the Tax Policy Center estimates that higher business taxes would affect 725,000 returns with about $400 billion of business income. Some of these are partnerships of doctors, lawyers, and accountants. Others are contractors, restaurant owners, florists, and plumbers."
(Emphasis added)

But merrily Obama and cronies will roll along, indiscriminately killing jobs and dousing the sparks of economic recovery.

We can't say that we weren't warned about this throughout 2008.

Sebelius threatens health insurers

Under the Obamanation, free speech only applies to those who support The Agenda (TM).

"President Barack Obama's top health official on Thursday warned the insurance industry that the administration won't tolerate blaming premium hikes on the new health overhaul law.

'There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases' Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a letter to the insurance lobby."

Captain Ed thinks that Obama and Sebelius are convinced that the Holy Obamacare scripture nullifies the 1st Amendment:

"Rarely have we heard a Cabinet official tell Americans to stay out of political debates at the risk of losing their businesses. It points out the danger in having government run industries and holding a position where politicians can actually destroy a business out of spite. It also demonstrates the thin skin of our current administration, where Hope and Change means keeping your mouth shut and pretending that everyone is happy while businesses slowly circle the drain.

Of course, maybe Sebelius won’t go as far as to lock them out of the state exchanges for disputing the Official Smiley-Face Rhetoric Enforcement Squad at HHS. Perhaps she’ll just send them to a re-education facility instead."

These agenda driven autocrat idiots never learn, do they?

A disaster of a mid term election will probably convince them to try their cram-down two minute warning drill to get even more of The Agenda (TM) into law.

"Economic Malpractice"

Our current malaise is a great example of the price we pay for putting agenda-driven economic amateurs in charge.

Noteworthy:

"How did they get it so wrong? It is because they have an economic theory, which did not and does not work in practice. If Team Obama had known American economic history, it would have known there was no case where a big increase in government spending — correctly measured as a percentage of gross domestic product — led to both higher private consumption and significant job growth (including World War II, when private consumption by necessity was severely restricted).

....To fund the stimulus spending, Team Obama is forced to sell an extra trillion dollars or so in government bonds. To whom does the government sell these bonds? The buyers are U.S. businesses and individuals (often through funds), and foreigners. When businesses and individuals buy these government bonds, they have less money for productive investment (government bonds primarily fund transfer payments, not productive investment) or private consumption. Less productive investment and/or private consumption means fewer private-sector jobs. Government can create government-sector jobs at the expense of private-sector jobs, but not at a higher real wage — which is one reason why a growing welfare state and/or a socialist economy always fail. Team Obama seems to have missed these basic historical lessons.....


....Team Obama persists in passing and implementing legislation and regulations that are obvious job-killers, yet it seems to be surprised when other countries that are not engaged in self-flagellation and economic malpractice are growing more rapidly and creating many new jobs."

A Labor Day notice to our American entrepreneurs from your helpful government

"I'd like to make you a business offer.

Seriously. This is a real offer. In fact, you really can't turn me down, as you'll come to understand in a moment...

Here's the deal. You're going to start a business or expand the one you've got now. It doesn't really matter what you do or what you're going to do. I'll partner with you no matter what business you're in - as long as it's legal.

But I can't give you any capital - you have to come up with that on your own. I won't give you any labor - that's definitely up to you. What I will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay your employees, and where and when you're allowed to operate your business. That's my role in the affair: to tell you what to do.

Now in return for my rules, I'm going to take roughly half of whatever you make in the business each year. Half seems fair, doesn't it? I think so. Of course, that's half of your profits.

You're also going to have to pay me about 12 percent of whatever you decide to pay your employees because you've got to cover my expenses for promulgating all of the rules about who you can employ, when, where, and how. Come on, you're my partner. It's only "fair."

Now ... after you've put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this business, and after you've worked hard at it for a few decades (paying me my 50 percent or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you'd like to cash out - to finally live the good life.

Whether or not this is 'fair' - some people never can afford to retire - is a different argument. As your partner, I'm happy for you to sell whenever you'd like ... because our agreement says, if you sell, you have to pay me an additional 20 percent of whatever the capitalized value of the business is at that time.

I know, I know. You put up all the original capital. You took all the risks. You put in all of the labor. That's all true. But I've done my part, too. I've collected 50 percent of the profits each year. And I've always come up with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I deserve another, final 20 percent slice of the business.

Oh ... and one more thing.

Even after you've sold the business and paid all of my fees, I'd recommend buying lots of life insurance. You see, even after you've been retired for years, when you die, you'll have to pay me 50 percent of whatever your estate is worth.

After all, I've got lots of partners and not all of them are as successful as you and your family. We don't think it's 'fair' for your kids to have such a big advantage. But if you buy enough life insurance, you can finance this expense for your children.

All in all, if you're a very if you're one of the rare, lucky, and hard-working people who can create a new company, employ lots of people, and satisfy the public, you'll end up paying me more than 75 percent of your income over your life. Thanks so much.

I'm sure you'll think my offer is reasonable and happily partner with me, but it doesn't really matter how you feel about it because if you ever try to stiff me - or cheat me on any of my fees or rules - I'll break down your door in the middle of the night, threaten you and your family with heavy, automatic weapons, and throw you in jail.

That's how civil society is supposed to work, right? This is America, isn't it?"

That's the offer America gives its entrepreneurs. And the idiots in Washington (and in the "progressive" media and on the "progressive" blogs) wonder why there are no new jobs.

Did Obama say anything of note last night?

Apparently not. And no one is really surprised.

Charles Krauthammer:

"I thought the speech was both flat and odd."

Jennifer Rubins:

"Obama is still candidate Obama, never tiring of reminding us that he kept his campaign pledge and ever eager to push aside foreign policy challenges so he can get on with the business of remaking America. All in all, it was what we were promised it would not be — self-serving, disingenuous, ungracious, and unreassuring."

NRO:

"If we still don’t know how the Iraq war is going to end, an engaged, strategically far-sighted commander-in-chief is essential."

...which we most certainly do not currently have by ANY stretch of the imagination, in ANY area of national concern foreign or domestic.

We won't even begin to talk about the hypocrisy of candidate-turned President Obama on the entire Iraq issue.

Assessing the State of the Economic Union

For the Obamanation and its partisan enablers, the economic reality can't be denied any longer.

Noteworthy;

"There is an instinctive conclusion among the American public that President Obama's stimulus package has failed to create a sustained recovery. Unemployment has increased, not declined; consumers have retrenched; housing starts have crashed along with mortgage applications; and there is a fear that a double-dip recession may very well be in the pipeline. The public perception, reflected in Pew Research/National Journal polls, is that the measures to combat the Great Recession have mostly helped large banks and financial institutions, and that's a view common to Republicans (75 percent) and Democrats (73 percent). Only one third of either political leaning thinks government policies have done a great deal or a fair amount for the poor.

There is another instinctive conclusion among the American people. It is that the national deficit, and the debts we have accumulated, are of critical political importance. On the national debt, the money the government has spent without the tax revenues to pay for it has produced mind-numbing numbers so large as to be disconnected from reality. Zeros from here to infinity. The sums are hard to describe; it is hard to describe an elephant, but you know one when you see one. The public knows that, shuffle the numbers as you may, the level of debt is unsustainable.

....Obama must know that if he doesn't address this, he will be the president who drove us toward a debt crisis. And so too must Congress, for both have now participated in the most fiscally irresponsible government in American history."


It will be up to the Republicans to solve this mess. Let's hope they're up to the task.

The last resort for Dems this election season

Does anyone really think the Demagouges Democrats are not desperate enough to try this worn out tactic?

Key points:

"Now we know why the country has become 'ungovernable,' last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?

Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. Majorities -- often lopsided majorities -- oppose President Obama's social-democratic agenda (e.g., the stimulus, Obamacare), support the Arizona law, oppose gay marriage and reject a mosque near Ground Zero.

What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument. The most venerable of these trumps is, of course, the race card. When the Tea Party arose, a spontaneous, leaderless and perfectly natural (and traditionally American) reaction to the vast expansion of government intrinsic to the president's proudly proclaimed transformational agenda, the liberal commentariat cast it as a mob of angry white yahoos disguising their antipathy to a black president by cleverly speaking in economic terms."

Does that remind you of a particular group of people who comment on a particular local "progressive" blog?

Is it November yet?

CATO@LIBERTY:"New York Times Seeks Higher Taxes on the ‘Rich’ as Prelude to Higher Taxes on the Middle Class"

Noteworthy:

"Most advocates of big government understand that it will be impossible to turn America into a European-style welfare state without a value-added tax, but they don’t want to publicly associate themselves with that view until the political environment is more conducive to success. Most important, they realize that it will be very difficult to impose a VAT without seducing some gullible Republicans into giving them political cover. And one way of getting GOPers to sign up for a VAT is by convincing them that they have to choose a VAT if they don’t want a return to the confiscatory 70 percent tax rates of the 1960s and 1970s. Any moves in that direction, such as raising the top tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent next January, are part of this long-term strategy to pressure Republicans (as well as naive members of the business community) into a VAT trap.

Shifting to other assertions, the editorial claims that 'more revenue will be needed in years to come to keep rebuilding the economy.' That’s obviously a novel assertion, and the editors never bother to explain how and why more tax revenue will lead to a stronger economy. Are the folks at the New York Times not aware that both economic growth and living standards are lower in European nations that have imposed higher tax burdens? Heck, even the Keynesians agree (albeit for flawed reasons) that higher taxes stunt growth.

The editorial also asserts that, 'Since 2002, the federal budget has been chronically short of revenue.' I suppose if revenues are compared to the spending desires of politicians, then tax collections are – and always will be – inadequate. The same is true in Greece, France, and Sweden. It doesn’t matter whether revenues are 20 percent of GDP or 50 percent of GDP. The political class always wants more."

Let's see:

- VAT

- Cap 'n Trade

- Higher health care costs, poorer health care service

- More regulation that generally raises costs across the board in many other areas

- Perpetually high true un- and under-employment

- Continued depressed capital investment

- Recurring creation of new bubble economy sectors

- More and improved corruption to pay for the Agenda (tm)

....and it STILL won't be enough for the providers and enablers of bad government, bad policy, continued malaise.

The truth is that these.....people......have absolutely no intent to stop spending, and have no intent to reduce the deficit. They just want MORE MONEY, MORE SPENDING, MORE AGENDA FULFILLMENT.

Are we not smart enough to put a stranglehold on these problems nationally on November 2nd, to be followed up with other action to cure the cancer that's growing?

Economic Fish Stories

Michael J. Boskin:

"President Obama says 'every economist who's looked at it says that the Recovery Act has done its job'—i.e., the stimulus bill has turned the economy around. That's nonsense.

Opinions differ widely and many leading economists believe that its impact has been small. Why? The expectation of future spending and future tax hikes to pay for the stimulus and Mr. Obama's vast expansion of government are offsetting the direct short-run expansionary effect. That is standard in all macroeconomic theories.

So, as I and others warned in 2008, the permanent government expansion and higher tax rate agenda is a classic example of what not to do during bad economic times. Worse yet, all the subsidies, bailouts, regulations and mandates are forcing noncommercial decisions on the economy, which now awaits literally thousands of new diktats as a result of things like ObamaCare and the financial reform bill. The uncertainty is impeding investment and hiring."

More economic fish stories are found here and here

As well we know, that particular blog, and many of its commentators (some of whom actually profess "expertise" in the subject) are routinely at the top of the clueless list on the general subject of the economy, just like their big brother hero.

Illustrating the Obama "Recovery"

Hat tip: the Mark Levin Show

Guess who wants to re-define religious "freedom" to make it fit The Agenda (TM)??

Here's a clue: It's NOT Chuck Colson



Here's the George Weigel article Colson referenced.

Excerpt:

"Religious freedom is already under assault from proponents of the LGBT agenda in Europe and Canada. Rocco Buttiglione’s convictions about the immorality of homosexual acts prevented his becoming Minister of Justice of the European Union, despite a lifetime in defense of the basic human rights of all and an explicit assurance that he would scrupulously enforce the EU’s equal-protection laws.

The Canadian Revenue Agency (their IRS) has recently removed the tax-exempt status of a Calgary church, in part because it spends more than 10 percent of its funds and time preaching and teaching against same-sex 'marriage' (and, to compound the offense, euthanasia and abortion). Anyone who imagines that this can’t happen in the Great Republic need only consider the recent efforts by the Washington, D.C., City Council to bring the Archdiocese of Washington to heel over the marriage question."

Hat Tip:Brenda Bowers

There is a concerted effort by local "progressive experts" to marginalize Christian-oriented bloggers. Two of the most prominent targets are Joe Guarino, and Michele Forrest.

These marginalizers have no qualms about re-defining Christianity and any particular individual Christian in a way that conveniently fits The Agenda (TM).