Beware Democrats Bearing "Gifts"

"Final Audit"

The Point That Usually Comes First to My Mind

Xavier Seen Such a Dishonest California Politician?

Californians aren't braindead, although you'd never know it from the quality of public officials they send to Sacramento year after year. And here's proof of it: liberal California politicians have to lie constantly to maintain their power, lest the common people they so disdain rise up against them. Case in point:

There is a ballot initiative coming up for a vote soon to repeal the onerous added gasoline tax to be added in November. The tax would add an additional twelve cents a gallon to gasoline that is already the highest priced in the nation. Fine. Let the voters decide. That's the democratic way isn't it? Let informed voters made the decision. It's that whole "informed" part that Democrat pols don't trust you with.

The office of the top law enforcement official in the state, Attorney General Xavier Becerra, D-Ishonest, is responsible for writing the official summary of the ballot measure, which is supposed to be an impartial description of the measure. (Stop laughing!) Becerra, who, had he been around when the saying "Crooked as a dog's hind leg"was written, might have been the maxim maker's model.

AG Becerra wrote the summary of a repeal of a regressive tax measure (minorities and poor hardest hit) without managing to use either the word "tax" or "fee" to describe it. In fact, it is so egregious that he is being sued because of it.
Republican Travis Allen, remarkably a Republican, is suing Becerra for misrepresenting the initiative, casting it as an effort to, and I quote, "eliminate recently enacted road repair and transportation funding". The bastards!! The money fairies brought Californians cash to repair their roads, and some big meanies are trying to take it away from us!

And by "us", of course, he means the State Government, and the magic money fairies are you, every time you fill up your gas tank.

The stakes are high. The 43%, twelve cent a gallon hike in taxes, and the twenty cent a gallon hike in diesel fuel are expected to bring in $5 Billion (with a "B") a year. And as far as regressive taxes on the poor, this one has a double whammy, because everything you buy in the stores comes in on a truck. Your groceries, hardware, clothing, shoes, even your Amazon order, is transported at least in part by a truck or series of trucks. If the cost of fuel goes up, the prices of all those goods must go up at least incrementally. So in addition to paying more in gas to go to work, or to the store, or on vacation, you'll be paying more for everything you buy. Everything. You'll then find it harder to make ends meet and put food on the table and all the Democrat politicians will tell you it's those evil corporations that are stealing you blind. Right.

So, even though most of California's reputation is well deserved, remember this: we're not all braindead out here, and the politicians even have to lie to the ones who are to keep themselves in power.

Donald Trump and the Spending Cuts of Doom

Donald Trump's greatest strength is that he is a successful CEO. He's a tough negotiator who gets what he wants. Right? In a top down organization, like a private business, a CEO has the authority to get a lot of things done. That's why they pay him the big bucks. But, just exactly how will that translate into public service? I want to focus here on just once aspect of Mr. Trump's proposed leadership.

Donald Trump told interviewer Chris Wallace that he would cut government agencies if he were to become president. "Slash" is the word I've heard him use more than once.

Chris Wallace: "Would you cut serve -- would you cut departments?"

Trump: "No, I'm not cutting services, but I'm cutting spending. But I may cut Department of Education. I believe Common Core is a very bad thing. I believe that we should be — you know, educating our children from Iowa, from New Hampshire, from South Carolina, from California, from New York. I think that it should be local education. So the Department of Education is one. Environmental Protection, what they do is a disgrace. Every week they come out with new regulations."

Before we focus on the specifics, I want to take a small, anecdotal overview of government budgets: city, state and federal. See if you cannot identify with my analysis. The people in charge of whatever government agency, mayor, governor, county supervisor, comes before the taxpayer with the sad news that there is not enough money in the agency's coffers to cover everything in the budget, so we need to raise your taxes. These days, the peasants have to assent to having their taxes raised, so if the peasants revolt and do not volunteer to raise their own taxes, our betters in government have to take drastic action.

Now you may know, or at least suspect, that there is a certain amount of waste and fraud at every level of government spending. There are certain nonessential services that no one but a small circle of friends would miss. Is that where the cuts come? Of course not. What are the most visible and popular areas that interact with the public? Schools, police, fire, and libraries. Where do the most visible and drastic cuts take place? Extra points if you said "Schools, police, fire, and libraries".

I have seen this little kabuki dance take place at all levels of government. No matter how many times a candidate for office avers to eliminate waste and fraud*, once they are a part of the system, with a very few exceptions, the will to govern with fiscal responsibility evaporates faster than Michael Moore decimates an all you can eat buffet.

After an indeterminate period of time, having been inconvenienced or annoyed with the cutbacks in services, the people will usually,  begrudgingly pass some kind of district user fee or tax to ransom back those lost services, or simply learn to live without them.

Which brings us back to Mr. Trump. If you were the head of one of those departments that Mr. Trump proposes to cut, or "slash", what would your response be? I can tell you what I would do. If I were running the Department of Education, which in my estimation has not contributed anything positive to the education of the American schoolchild,  has been a colossal waste of money, and a boondoggle of the first order, I would do what bureaucrats from time immemorial have done, and slash the programs with the highest public visibility, and then, to further twist the knife, as soon as my budget was cut, I would begin to attribute every failing and shortcoming in my organization on budget cuts.

I would go to my willing co-conspirators in the media, who would paint the new Trump administration as anti-education, and anti-children. Remember when Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House? Newt proposed devolving school lunch funding to the states. He proposed block granting MORE money to the states than they were currently getting. It was an act to decrease the power of the federal government. Democrats, who never met a dollar they didn't think was theirs, immediately responded by accusing Newt of "cutting money for school lunches" and "starving" school children. Their willing accomplices in the mainstream media picked up the mantra, and even though the reality Newt proposed was to give more money to school lunches, the public's perception was "mean, nasty Republicans hate kids and want to balance the budget on the backs of schoolchildren."
Toxic lies 1, truth 0.

Does anyone with greater than a room temperature IQ believe that "slashing" the Education budget will result in an outcome substantially different than the one I have described? And Trump proposes to do the same not to one, but to multiple agencies, who will all attribute any failures or shortcomings to a lack of funding and mean Republicans. (Not necessarily in that order).

The is an old maxim in life, to quote Emerson, "When you strike at a king, you must kill him." Meaning, if you merely wound him, he will have the power to retaliate. Better to eliminate the entire department than to leave a mechanism in place to actively lobby for their own self preservation, on the taxpayer's dime.

And that doesn't even get into the problem that the president can propose budget cuts, but as a coequal branch, spending bills originate in the House. Who also read polls. Could a president Trump persuade a majority of the House of Representatives and the Senate to make enemies of the education establishment and leave the remnant to run a propaganda war against them? I don't think so.

And that's the difference between a politician and a CEO. Different skill set. Different problems. Different realities. The rhetoric of "slashing budgets" may be red meat to his followers, but there's no guarantee that he will be able to successfully follow through.








*In 2008, candidate Barack Obama promised to go through the budget line by line to eliminate waste and fraud. Other than the military, can anyone name a single line item in any budget in the last seven years that Obama has proposed cutting?


Original art by John Cox. More at John Cox Art

A Tale of Four Tax Cheats (Updated)

On Nov. 19, 2010, we noted that "one of these four men is going to jail for three years for not paying his taxes."

(The other three are politicians.)


Here's an update: Wesley Snipes has been released from jail, on April 2, 2013. He still remains under home confinement until July 19. The other three men are still politicians.

Tax Day Weekend Header

Going with the new "Tax day weekend" header, featuring "A Tale of Four Tax Cheats".

One of these four men is going to jail for three years for not paying his taxes. (The other three are politicians.)

Don'tcha Wish There Was an Oil Man in the White House Now?

Remember how, just a few years back, when we had a real president, every time the price of gasoline would go up, you could count on some liberal to screech about how Bush and Cheney were "oil men" and they were just "helping their buddies in the oil bidness"? (Actually, they didn't say "bidness". They weren't cool enough to pull it off!) Wish I had a nickel for every time I heard that!

And now we have in the White House, a man who's never been in any kind of business and the prices have gone up even faster. How can that be? Does Obama have friends in the oil bidness, too? What's his excuse?

And then, there was Nancy Pelosi. When she assumed the speakership, gas was around $1.80- $2.00 a gallon. She was outraged! And she pledged that her Democrat controlled House would "do something about it"! I guess we should have asked her to be a little more specific about what they were going to do!

And two dirty little secrets, one, Democrat social planners have been advocating raising taxes on gasoline to drive the price up to five dollars a gallon, to reduce gasoline consumption (and keep us all poorer). And two, government already pulls in more cash from a gallon of gas than oil companies make in profits.

Look at this chart from Daily Markets last year:



State and Federal gas taxes combined, take 26 to 68 cents a gallon and funnels it straight to the government. Oil company profits are around two per cent, and those evil SOBs are just out to screw you.

So, let me get this straight...the people who stand to make the most from high oil prices are...the government tax collectors. And some politicians want to demonize the people who actually bust their hump to bring the energy to you, when the government levies taxes twenty five times as high as oil company profits, on every gallon of gas you buy. As our progressieve friends like to say, the gas taxes are regressive taxes that hit the poor hardest. The poor pay proportionally more for gas to look for work or to commute to a job than the upper or middle classes. Why doesn't some good liberal suggest lowering the gas tax? Because it is a cash cow for government. And as long as they can keep the common folk focusing on how evil Big Oil is, they'll keep spending. But, think about it...if Exxon/Mobil is making millions off their two cent profit...how much more is Big Government siphoning out of your pocket every day?

Vote your pocketbook this November. We can't afford the cost of the Green Utopia Obama and his social planners have picked out for us. Some people are putting Post-it notes on the gas pumps: "How's that hope and change working out for you?" But, whenever you drive down the street, point out all those gas signs to your friends as political advertisements for Anybody but Obama.


Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

What Makes Us Human?

Did Descartes have it right? “I think, therefore, I am”? Or maybe Twain’s observation that “humans are the only creatures who blush…or need to”? Fairy tales and speculative fiction are awash with the theme, of what it means to be truly human. Wooden Pinocchio wants to be a real boy. Silicone and steel android Data longs to know what it is to be human, despite the irony that the longing is itself a human emotion. He is curious about what it means to be curious. Curiouser and curiouser! Strange visitors from another planet are raised by humans to embrace a code of decency and honor. Others come and fall in love... does love make us human?

And what of those who, became somehow more than human? Radioactive spider bites, bombardment with gamma radiation, mutations of the human genome…at what point can it be said that a human transcends humanity and becomes homo superior?

Now imagine having those philosophical musings, discussing and arguing the respective points over the course of ten years. College boy conundrums? Speculation at a seminary? Meditations at a monastery?
No. A discussion about...the level of taxes on...toys.

The forthcoming Avengers movie, directed by Joss Whedon and expected May 4 from Walt Disney Pictures, depicts the Marvel superhero group teaming up to save the Earth from utter destruction.

Saving the world is ordinary fare for superheroes, especially teams like the Avengers and the X-Men. But one of the biggest battles ever fought in the Marvel universe took place in the real world, a historic fight that lasted 10 years and crossed America.

The clash ended quietly in 2003, with a monumental, six-figure legal ruling by the U.S. government: The X-Men and many other superheroes simply aren’t human.

Or more precisely, they’re not dolls, which, according to the U.S. Customs Bureau, represent “only human beings.” They’re toys, which represent “animals or non-human creatures.”

What’s the difference? Gazillions of dollars.

Even though it sounds like the sort of discussion the nerds on The Big Bang Theory might discuss, this was big business.

The U.S. government waded into the “mutant or mortal” battle 19 years ago at ports in Los Angeles and Seattle after Customs officials there classified several large shipments of action figures, including the X-Men, as “dolls” instead of “toys.”

But labeling the figures as “dolls” made importing the X-Men nearly twice as expensive as they would have been as “toys,” facing a 12 percent tax rather than a 6.8 percent tax.

...Recognizing the difference between toys and dolls, international trade lawyers Sherry Singer and Indie Singh saw an opportunity to save Marvel a lot of money by getting the X-Men, along with Marvel’s other action figures, including the Hulk, Spider-Man, and Iron Man, reclassified as toys.

At this point, one is hard pressed whether to laugh or cry. To think that for ten years lawyers have been working, on both sides, and expert witnesses have been testifying whether Barbie should be taxed at a higher rate than Wolverine, reminds me of another Bizarro world I read about when I was younger.

Does the government really have a vested interest in whether or not the Human Torch is more human than torch? I know it is in the DNA of every bureaucrat to micromanage every aspect of our lives, but at some point, can't we decide that the government we have is more than we really ever needed? When our toys are categorized, not by weight, or the amount of polystyrene or paint, but by the philosophical backstory of their characters???

I suppose I could have titled this "What is a doll?" But, would that have piqued your human curiosity and caused you to read this far? And would you have had as much of a surprise making the hyperspace leap from comic book heroes to taxes and tariffs?

This is but one more illustration of the bloated bureaucracy that nibbles away at our economic freedoms and attempts to regulate every aspect of our lives. It's way past time to start taking our country back from our wooden headed, would be masters and their arbitrary rules and regulations.

Equal rights for G.I.Joe! In the meantime, before we can roll back this overly burdensome and somewhat ridiculous over regulation, I suggest that Mattel put out a comic book where Barbie, Ken and Skipper all get bitten by radioactive spiders...

The folks at Mattel can show their gratitude to me with a small percentage of the tax savings realized...


Cross posted at LCR, Lady Cincinnatus , Say Anything.

Crossroads GPS Ad Buy in Swing States

At first glance, Crossroads GPS sounds like it might be an alternative to Garmin for the Christmas shopping season. It is not. The present they hope for under the tree won't get here 'til next November...

The Republican-affiliated outside group Crossroads GPS has launched a major ad buy contrasting President Obama's policies with clips of President Clinton seemingly arguing against tax increases on wealthy Americans.

The large $2.6 million ad buy will run for two weeks in the swing states of Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado, and North Carolina, according to the group.

"President Obama has launched a tax attack on American jobs that hits Main Street businesses, home mortgages, and school and road repair funds," said Crossroads GPS president Steven Law in a statement. "Former President Clinton and bipartisan majorities in Congress agree that Obama’s tax hikes won’t solve the problem. The ad aims to get Obama to stop attacking and start listening."

Granted, while I would like to see the unedited clips of Clinton speaking to get the entire context, Obama is the poster child for Tax and Spend.

H/T Memeorandum

Obama: The Grinch Who Taxed Christmas

President Obama’s Agriculture Department today announced that it will impose a new 15-cent charge on all fresh Christmas trees—the Christmas Tree Tax—to support a new Federal program to improve the image and marketing of Christmas trees.

Two questions: First, where in the Constitution does it instruct the Federal Government to be in the business of promoting Christmas tree sales in any way shape or form?

Second, do only people who make more than $250,000 a year buy Christmas trees? Or is this going to be a tax on those Obama swore not to tax?

H/T Memeorandum. More at Weasel Zippers.

Eliminate Tax Loopholes for the Rich -Starting with GM

I've been thinking a lot about our fearless leader's call for higher taxes on the rich. Close those "tax loopholes" that help them to avoid paying their "fair share".

Let's start here:


Chevy Volt - Code Blue

The MSRP for the 2011 Chevrolet Volt in the U.S. starts at $40,280. Starts. That's the base model. For a car that goes (according to the EPA) 35 miles in all-electric mode. The total range is 379 miles (gas and electric).

Now, I don't know about you, but thirty five miles will not get me to work and back on any given day. Hell, some days, three hundred and seventy nine miles won't cut it either. So, who buys a car that is not reliable enough to get you to work and back on a single charge and is too small to be comfortable on a long trip?

It is ill suited, therefore to be one's primary or sole means of transportation, so, who is it that can afford a $40,000 subcompact to drive, aside from commutes or vacations? The rich. Anyone could buy a Chevy Cruze, which is a gas version of the Volt (only $23,000 cheaper), with more head room, legroom and a longer range. Who buys an expensive novelty car that's not very practical, just to prove a point, or make one feel better about themselves and the "environment"? This car has Ed Begley, Jr. written all over it!

So, if the rich, or at least, moderately well off, want to buy a Volt, let them! But, about those "loopholes"...

Quantifying just how much taxpayer money will have been wasted on the hastily developed Volt is no easy feat. Start with the $50 billion bailout (without which none of this would have been necessary), add $240 million in Energy Department grants doled out to G.M. last summer, $150 million in federal money to the Volt’s Korean battery supplier, up to $1.5 billion in tax breaks for purchasers and other consumer incentives, and some significant portion of the $14 billion loan G.M. got in 2008 for “retooling” its plants, and you’ve got some idea of how much taxpayer cash is built into every Volt.

But, wait! (As they say) There's more! Let's give every rich person who buys a Chevy Volt a $7,500 tax credit (read: "loophole"), so all the poor people who can't even afford a single new car can help subsidize the rich to buy an extra one!

Now, am I really incensed that the rich are taking advantage of this "loophole", not available to poorer folks? Not really. Even with a $7,500 tax break, the Volt is still overpriced and under featured. The sales numbers of the Volt, even after a flood of government money are anemic and somewhat pathetic.

So, what's the point? It's this: One man's loophole is simply another man's deduction. The demagoguery of using the term "loophole" to generate class envy, by implying an unfair advantage (in areas where you really just want to raise taxes) while ignoring similar tax breaks in areas you want to encourage, is hypocritical to say the least.

When this administration tells you they want to "close the loopholes" so that the rich "pay their fair share", what they are talking about is raising taxes, pure and simple. It has been noted that even taxing "the rich" at 100% and confiscating everything they have, would not solve the problems created by a spendthrift Congress, so "taxing the rich" is just a bit of class envy political theater, used to distract the voters away from the real problem by demonstrating that they are at least "doing something". (And sticking it to those rich guys, doggone it!)

And although Barack Obama has acknowledged that it is not a good idea to raise taxes during a recession, still, he has tried to 1) end the Bush across the board tax cuts last December, 2) eliminate "loopholes" like depreciation on private jets, and 3) calls for a quote unquote "balanced" approach that includes even more tax increases.

And speaking of "balance", if raising taxes in a recession is a bad thing, how is it "balanced" to do a bad thing with a good thing? This whole nonsense about "balancing" spending cuts with tax increases (What about five to one? Ten to one? Etc.) can be illustrated thusly: You've been buying clean ground beef and one day your butcher decides he's going to "balance" that by selling a little beef with e.coli mixed in.

Would this "balanced" approach be more palatable if the mixture is ten to one beef instead of five to one? Or would it still bad for you?

"Balance" is probably a word that "focus grouped" well, and Obama would much rather tell you he's taking a "balanced approach" than to tell you he's actually in favor of raising taxes during a recession. But don't buy it... and change your butcher!

"May You Live in Interesting Times."

Someone recently asked about the origin of "May you live in interesting times."

I said, It was originally considered a curse in China. Considering our state of our indebtedness, and to whom, perhaps it should be, "May you live in compound interesting times."

A little more background, if you will. I did a little study of Chinese history back in my college days and even wrote a paper on the history of technology in China. As I recall from my far distant and semi-misspent youth, the Chinese venerated tradition. Find the perfect order and then don't change it, no matter what!

Given the complexity and variety of technological innovations that came out of China, it was somewhat surprising that they would have been eclipsed by the West. Everyone knows the Chinese invented gunpowder, and if you think about it, modern ceramics originated in a country once known for its "china". They invented the compass and innovations in sailing technology, but the culture of tradition, making each generation match the one before was not a suitable womb for innovation.

The West, on the other hand, embraced innovation with a passion. And each innovation caused the innovators to try to improve upon the one before, And as you can imagine, brought about a lot of that dreaded "change". (No, I wasn't going to go there, but thanks for paying attention!) A whole new genre of writing was created about things never even dreamt of before. Hence, they called them "novels". (That's a novel idea!)

You should hunt an old 8 track cartridge down on Craig's List or give someone a nickel for one at a garage sale. Give it to your kids and tell them what it was. Tell them how much music it would hold. And then, tell them about the skeins of magnetic tape that could often be seen at the base of stop signs, where frustrated music lovers would throw the tangled mess out a window after the player "ate" it.

It was innovation that put an ipod jack in my new car's dash instead of an 8 track slot. Innovation that created the computer or smart phone that you are reading this on this very moment. (And now I'll go there) And innovation can continue to create wealth today, if government would loosen its stranglehold on the economy. Investors need to know the extent of the risk to which they are exposing their capital, and have a reasonable rate of return. This can be accomplished by lowering the tax rates, which typically and historically bring in more revenue to the government through increased activity.

Second, bureaucratic hurdles should be lowered or removed. (Think Chinese traditions) Unnecessary and redundant agencies place a burden on new and existing businesses. It's time to trade in a few score of paper pushers on the government payroll in favor of the businesses that will create your next job, or invent the next innovation or technology that will make our future brighter.

Thirdly, we need a common sense approach to our energy need. I doubt that wind and solar are the future fuel for American prosperity. These are boutique sources now, at best, and both require a duplication of capacity for those times the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. Until such time as technology makes a quantum leap to cold fusion, greater solar cell efficiency or some unknown and as yet undiscovered technology, petroleum is the fuel of America's economy. And rising petroleum costs make American made goods less competitive, America's crops more expensive and degrades the quality of life for all Americans, save the wealthiest.

We have been getting lame excuses since at least the Clinton administration as to why drilling in the most God forsaken corner of ANWR wouldn't produce any noticeable results "for ten years". So, in doing nothing but obstruct the oil industry to please the environmentalist wacko wing of your base, these oil fields would be producing wealth for the oil companies, Alaska and the US, though taxes, and contributing to the world supply of oil to reduce the demand starting around 2003? Literally, thanks for nothing! /sarcasm

"Interesting times" can be very unsettling, hence the curse aspect. And, if the times were "interesting" it would have to be because they didn't conform to the old and better ways of our traditions. Change is not always for the best. Things changed in New Orleans with a hurricane and in Japan with an earthquake and a tsunami. Some of you long for the good old days of 2008, when you had a job and a decent, if not spectacular 401k. And change happened in 2008 when the nation elected the most incompetent or destructive President since Jimmy Carter.

But, change happens. Right now, we need a double dose of it in Washington. We need a president and a Congress that will make real and not phony spending cuts. The recent downgrade of America's credit rating is a demonstration that world markets will not tolerate the Washington Kabuki dance of fiscal pretense. America has got to get serious about its spending problem. Congress needs to be told that they must find some projects worthy of cuts or termination beyond defense and care for the elderly.

Can you tell me today of a single program, outside of the military (and I'm sure if we looked, we could find some waste and inefficiency there too!), that anyone of either party has suggested that we eliminate, either because it is redundant or no longer serves a useful purpose? And could we not also finds tons of spending for things that might have been a good idea in times of plenty that we can no longer afford? This is also true of state and local governments. You'll see a two story modern art "sculpture" in a public park, and junkets to exotic lands for Very Important Conferences, but we either need to raise your taxes or cut back on police, fire, schools and libraries.

The time for lip service and political gamesmanship has passed. This next election cycle, we need to replace anyone who gets in the way of real financial and debt reform.

This nation was built upon freedom and innovation. It's time once again that we freed ourselves from the tyranny of bureaucrats and big spending politicians, and rallied to the ballot boxes in 2012 to return sanity and self control to government.

When you think about it, that'd be quite an innovation!

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Prescriptions for Recovery and Disaster

There is a myth constantly going around about the sorry state of manufacturing in this country. Since I work for an American manufacturer, whose products sell worldwide, this has been of some interest to me. I recently engaged in a dialogue with a fellow over at Big Government who believes, from what I can gather, that a return to protectionist trade policies and tariffs is America's only hope. Please, don't take my word for it, his arguments in full are here.

I will post portions of the exchange, leaving out, perhaps a little more of the "colorful" language, and opting for brevity over a verbatim transcript, since I have not gathered anyone's permission but my own for the quotes. Forgive me if the following lacks the structure of a formal essay. I believe the material speaks for itself, without a large scale edit and re-writing and makes some valid points in the aftermath of the US's recent credit downgrade.

I merely mentioned the fact that Obama's hand picked adviser for job growth is busy exporting jobs as we speak. Obama also talks about "closing loopholes" where big companies avoid paying taxes, while Jeffrey Immelt is essentially making GE X-ray a Chinese subsidiary of GE, and whoops! not subject to US taxes. That enough hypocrisy for you?

We cannot "demand" that other countries raise their standards. Ever hear of the concept of "sovereign nations"? If you want to take a stand against other countries using cheaper labor and/or less than ideal working conditions, please feel free to boycott all products not made in the US. Hope you're not awfully fond of television. We haven't made any sets in the US since before the age of digital TV.

Your fantasies about tariffs are duly noted.

This was followed by the point that what had made the US "the greatest economic power in the world", was "fair trade policies".

My rejoinder:

"Do you believe it is fair to trade with a country that artificially pegs its currency?" Are you suggesting an embargo? Adopt the Cuban model? That would be one way to stop the US from "trying to compete" with these countries.

Tariffs start trade wars. The best one can hope for with tariffs, is for certain favored industries to benefit. Prices to consumers will go up (great time to raise prices, during a recession, right?) and the countries who are the targets of the tariffs will undoubtedly respond with tariffs of their own, making our goods less profitable to sell abroad.

Unless we can find some poor country who has nothing we want to buy. Then we can make their goods less profitable and our country can grow richer at their expense? Is that your idea of "fair"?

There are things that can be done to improve the business climate here in our favor. Eliminate unnecessary regulations, which raise the costs of doing business, (please note my use of the word "unnecessary" and spare me additional straw men.) lower the tax rates and make them permanent. Too many businesses are paralyzed into inactivity because of the uncertainty of tax laws, health care requirements and regulations.

Fair trade is when I trade what I have for what you have and both parties are satisfied. If business is to grow and unemployment is to recede, the government has got to get out of the way. Primarily in reducing the tax burden that feeds a bloated government filled with endless redundant departments, all of which combine to put the brakes on our economy.

Personally, I try not to buy goods made in China, for a number of reasons. I wouldn't have given them most favored nation status. But slapping any tariffs on them to protect any domestic industry is doomed to failure. It would only hurt the consumer and raise unemployment among low skilled workers and teenagers.

What made the US the greatest economic power in the world, was freedom. To the extent that government takes freedom away, it cripples economic recovery.

After a bit of back and forth, in typical liberal fashion, (whether he is one or not), he seems to take delight in dealing with what I haven't said, rather than what I did. A sort of Mind Read Fail. He advocated the return to the policies of Alexander Hamilton, and an 11 point plan... from the eighteenth century. (1791 for the math impaired)

My reply:

"Only through manufacturing, when $5 worth of iron ore is converted into a $2000 car door, or $1 worth of raw wool is converted into a $1000 Calvin Klein suit, is real wealth created" Sorry! I reject your premise. And if you thought about it for a minute, so would you. What makes a " $1 worth of raw wool... into a $1000 Calvin Klein suit"? The obvious answer is "Calvin Klein". That's what makes it different from a $100 Steve Garvey suit or from a $2 ball of yarn your granny uses to knit you a scarf.

Intellectual property creates "real wealth". You can manufacture $.25 CD-ROMs and Blu-rays all day long, but if you want to sell it for $10 or $25 or $200, you'd better put some music or a movie or some software on it that I want to buy. **

And there is "real wealth" in our resources as well. You scoff about $5 worth of iron ore, but no one mines just five dollars worth. There is real wealth created when it is mined and again when it is smelted and again when it is manufactured into something useful. And, if you do it right, once again when it is recycled.

And despite many myths and old wives tales, there is still a lot of manufacturing going on in this country. There are just not as many manufacturing jobs. By automating processes in their plants (and moving to right to work states), many manufacturers have been able to remain competitive with foreign labor. New Balance shoes, for example. http://www.newbalance.com/usa/

Energy creates wealth. Without energy, the $5 ore never gets mined or smelted or the wool stitched into an Armani suit. Without energy, the worker cannot get to the factory which cannot keep its doors open without it. Real wealth can be found in drilling and refining our own oil. Reducing energy costs would make every industry in the country more profitable, from the food on your table, to the shoes on your feet to the car that you drive.

This administration has chosen to hobble the energy industry at every turn, choosing instead to subsidize mythical* green energy and penalize every other existing source of energy. There is real wealth in the ground and more to be had in refining, manufacturing gasoline, if you will, if this administration and all the green weenies on the left would just get out of the way.

Reduce the pointless and counterproductive regulatory morass, lower corporate taxes, which are merely a hidden tax on the consumer, allow our nation's energy companies to drill and mine the resources we have and you will see a big turnaround in this country.

*In the sense of providing enough power to drive our current economy, much less the future.

** With high speed downloading, even the "manufactured" CD-ROM is virtually obsolete. (See: high button shoes/buggy whips)

FYI: "Since 1975, (US) manufacturing output has more than doubled"

In looking to document one of my points to "hockeynation" I ran across this (and the chart above):

Since 1975, manufacturing output has more than doubled, while employment in the sector has decreased by 31%. While these American job losses are indeed sobering, they are not an indication of declining U.S. competitiveness. In fact, these statistics reveal that the average American manufacturer is over three times more productive today than they were in 1975 – a sure sign of economic progress.

The true cause of dwindling American competitiveness is a tax code that puts domestic firms at a clear disadvantage – not a lack of skill or innovation on the part of the American worker.

- Veronique de Rugy

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Michele Bachmann Voted No, and Says it Proudly.

This may be the lady to watch in 2012.

H/T Reaganite Republican

Turbo Tax Timmy Geithner Has His Head in the Clouds

I watched most of Turbo Tax Timmy's interview on Fox News Sunday this AM. (Transcript here.) A few things, I thought, were notable.

One was the apparently focus grouped word "cloud". Three times Turbo Tax Timmy mentioned "raising the cloud of default" that hovers over the country.

The idea that we're going to spend another seven months lifting the cloud of default from the American economy...

But they're going to look at whether we lift the cloud of default off the American economy...

And if Congress makes some sensible decisions right now, lifts this cloud of dysfunction, of default, off of the American economy...

He also used "specter" (the ghost, not Arlen) and I believe misspoke it once as "spectrum".

...we're trying to do avoid not just default today, but the specter of default in the future.

Note particularly the partisan blame game in this next quote:

And this spectrum of default that Republicans have put over the country is hurting the confidence of average Americans.

So, when Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House in 2010, and were Constitutionally required to submit a budget by October of 2010, wherein they could have addressed any budgetary cuts required, they failed to do so and this is why the Republicans are at fault? Takes two to tango, Timmy! The Democrats' failure to provide any leadership at all up to this point is what fomented the crisis. And now, any Republican plan is met by demagoguery from the Dems (You can't spell "demagogue" without "dem"), which is what they do best.

For the Dems to paint themselves as blameless in this negotiation, in which there are things upon which they themselves will not compromise (like class envy), is rank hypocrisy. Had the 2010 budget been passed, perhaps there would at least be more of a framework to work with here.

However, it was for political reasons that the Dems abdicated their Constitutional duties. They knew that if the voters saw exactly how irresponsible their spending plans were, there would have been more Democrats defeated in 2010. So they ignored the Constitution for the sake of holding on to power, hiding their intentions from the will of the people, so that there would be more of them to demagogue whatever plan the real adults in the room, the Republicans, would put forward.

On a side note, when you're watching the Sunday shows, listen for that one word or phrase that keeps creeping into the conversation, like "cloud of default". It usually means that it's a word that focus groups reacted favorably to. In other words, it will help people buy what you're selling! The most adept interviewees will work this word both into their opening statement and again the last sentence they utter. The gratuitous use of the word in between those two statements is what the spinmeisters hope you will take away from their efforts.

Anyway, little Timmy believes that raising the "cloud of default" that hovers over the country is to do that which is "most important". Actually, kicking this can down the road past the next election is what this administration considers most important.

“We have to lift this credit default from the economy for -- you know, for the next 18 months. We have to take that threat off the table through the election”

Yeah. Right! Obama does not want his stewardship of the economy to be an issue in the 2012 election. The Dems would rather sweep it under the rug than to deal honestly with a problem that affects every household in the country. Notice that Obama and the Dems have stated they will not negotiate on any plan that needs to be re-examined between now and November 2012. Getting Obama re-elected is, as Ford used to say, "Job One".

There is class envy in Geithner's answers. The so called "shared burden", which of course means taking more from those who are productive, because the poor don't have a lot to share. (More on this in another post.) Note the language that Geithner uses, and know that it is not accidental. Geithner wants to raise taxes on the "most fortunate Americans". Get that? people haven't really earned their money, they just "got lucky". "Fortune" smiled upon them and money apparently rained from the skies!

The hypocrisy in this? Our tax code is not set up to tax the fortunate, so much as people who actually produce something. If you inherited a lot of money, you may be "fortunate", but that's not "income". If you work for a living, or own a small business, that's income. And small businesses, which create the bulk of jobs in this country, are squarely in the cross hairs of this administration and their tax "revenue" plans.

Unfortunately, most liberals use a "static" model of the economy, which is "How do you divide up a pie that always stays the same size?" Only, it doesn't stay the same size. More economic activity can increase the size of the pie, providing more and more to more people, while disincentives can discourage economic growth and production and leave an even smaller "pie" to be divided.

Liberal ideologues, like Obama and Geithner talk about increasing tax "revenues", when historically, revenues to the treasury have increased with the introduction of tax cuts**. Tax cuts stimulate the economy, which employs more people who become taxpayers and increases the volume of productivity, which means the government collects less tax on any given individual, but more than makes up for it in the volume.

To the liberal ideologue, this is unacceptable. It offends their sense of "fairness". They would rather see Americans unemployed and businesses ruined than to compromise their class envy based belief system. Candidate Obama said as much, that he would make taxes more "fair" even if it meant less revenue to the government. This was long before he told Joe the Plumber that he wanted to "spread the wealth".

Then, there is the obligatory: "Bush did it." When Chris Wallace pressed Geithner on poor unemployment and growth issues, here's what he had to say:

the American economy is still suffering undeniably from the tragic after-effects of the crisis this president inherited.

Translation: The effects of Bush's spending and participation in two "unpaid for" wars were so bad that Obama spending three to four times as much and involving us in yet another war and assorted :kinetic military actions" (KMA seems to be a recurring theme for the Obama administration, along with WTF*) cannot be blamed. The "denial" is all ours! Shutting down oil production in the Gulf and refusing to allow drilling and other activities that would increase the nation's wealth (and tax a portion of it as it grows) is not as important as appeasing the environmentalist wackos and trying to foist "green" solutions to every problem. Despite massive influxes of government cash, electric car companies and solar companies are going bankrupt or cutting back. Obama is sacrificing the economy of today for some imaginary tomorrow. Obama and Tim Geithner's plans for "winning" sound more like Charlie Sheen's.

I'll post video from the interview as soon as it becomes available.

*They say it means "Winning the future". Most people say it with regards to the present actions of the president.

**JFK knew this. If only we had a few Democrats like JFK again! Well, in a sense we do. They're all Republicans now!

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

A Primer on How Socialists View Your Money

It's theirs.

"It would be nice if we could keep every tax break, but we can’t afford them," Obama said. "Because if we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, or for hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners, or for oil and gas companies pulling in huge profits without our help – then we’ll have to make even deeper cuts somewhere else."

Hear that, people? The government "can't afford" to let you keep any more of your money than they decide is best for you! Aside from the class envy engendered by the rhetoric of "tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, or for hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners", the fact is, as was experienced by JFK, when he lowed tax rates, when you lower tax rates, you increase tax revenues to the government because there is more activity generated. People have more incentive to invest in their businesses when there is a monetary gain expected.

Obama, however, is on the record of saying that he favors raising taxes, even if lowered tax rates generated more income to the government, for the sake of "fairness".



"Pay as you go". Gosh. We should remind Obama of this between now and 2012 to ask him how his massive "stimulus" bills were "pay as you go"? Where were the other cuts in spending, Mr. Obama?

Expect to hear the mantra of "tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires" over and over again between now and election 2012. Remember, with Obama, it's not about fixing the economy or putting people back to work, it's about "fairness". If everyone (except the ruling class which he so conveniently seems to be a part of) is equality broke, then it's "fair". If everyone (except the ruling class which he so conveniently seems to be a part of) has crappy health care, at least it's "fair"!

If gas is five dollars a gallon and bologna is ten bucks a pound and you can't turn your thermostat higher than 67° in the winter time, at least we'll have the satisfaction of knowing we really stuck it to those corporate jet owners...who used to employ us for good wages!

H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Quote du jour

Knowing...that when tax rates were reduced, government revenue actually increased due to private-sector economic growth — I knew that the projected revenue loss from tax cuts was a mere accounting fiction.

-Robert Stacy McCain

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-ipwad) Finally Pays Taxes on Her Private Plane

What is it with Democrats and not paying taxes? Claire McCaskill has never struck me as the sharpest knife in the Democrat drawer, from her lackluster appearances on the Sunday morning shows, but here, she shows the same tin ear most Democrat politicians do when it comes to meeting their civic obligations.

In a conference call with reporters, Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill just disclosed that she failed to pay $287,000 in property taxes related to her co-ownership of a private aircraft. This scandal comes quickly on the heels of recent revelations that McCaskill improperly billed taxpayers for use of the same private aircraft, for which McCaskill reimbursed the Treasury $88,000

Tom Daschle gets chauffeured around in a limo and "forgets" to pay his fair share of taxes for the privilege. Turbo Tax Timmy Geithner "forgets" to pay his taxes. Claire McCaskill flies around in her own private plane and "forgets" to pay taxes on it (and inappropriately bills some of the expenses to the taxpayer to boot!).

Maybe she's angling for a cabinet position in the Obama administration?

H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything

Obama Compared to JFK...and Found Wanting

Rush Limbaugh, on his show yesterday, played a montage of the fawning MSM comparing Obama in his speech to the US Chamber of Commerce, to JFK.

E.J. DIONNE: It was a John F. Kennedy sort of "ask, uh, what you can do for your country" speech!

CONNELL McSHANE: A JFK moment...

LARRY KUDLOW: ...stealing a page from JFK.

JOHN HARWOOD: A JFK-style challenge to businesses...

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: ...a Kennedy-like call to action!

MARK CRUMPTON: ...hearken back to President Kennedy!

CHRISTINE ROMANS: ...sounded like JFK!

Then, he played clips from President Kennedy, whose policies are diametrically opposed to whatever Obama has done the last two years or proposes doing for the next two (or, God forbid, six!)

"Every dollar released from taxation, that is spent or invested, will help create a new job and a new salary, and these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries, and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy."

JFK called for across the board tax cuts to create new jobs and more growth. Obama doesn't want to release dollars from taxation, he wants as many of them as he can get his hands on.

"If government is to retain the confidence of the people, it must not spend more than can be justified (give or take a trillion) on grounds of national need or spent with maximum efficiency."

If JFK were delivering this speech today, he would have to pause there for a laugh.

The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business, is to reduce the burden on private income, and the deterrence to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II, to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peacetime.

Does that sound anything like Obama to you? Me neither!

When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid off, investment increases and profits are higher. Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment.

That sounds suspiciously like a jobs program to me! Or we could raise taxes on business to make them "pay their fair share", even if in reality those taxes are added to the cost of the products you buy, as a hidden tax on the consumer, which is a regressive tax on the poor.

I was twelve years old when Kennedy ran for president. That didn't stop me from supporting him. I still have the Kennedy for President button I wore in grade school. Hearing him again reminds me of how far the Democrats have fallen in the last two score and ten years.

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.