"NOBODY IN THIS COUNTRY GOT RICH ON THEIR OWN" Updated

Progressive Elizabeth Warren is in the running for Republican Scott Brown's Senate seat in Massachusetts.  There's no mushy middle ground for this lady, so it should be an interesting race.  At a recent campaign stop, Ms. Warren said this:

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody.


“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.

“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

First of all, companies aren't like sourdough bread, where you reserve some of the yeast for the next batch.  Business owners already "pay it forward" in many ways - by providing intern programs, scholarships or mentoring, to name a few.  Second, the "big hunk" government allows companies to keep doesn't go right in the owner's bank account.  It makes payroll, buys materials and machinery, advertising, shipping, and myriad other things.  Most small business owners don't see a profit for the first five years.  Most businesses operate with a lean 2-5% profit margin.  Every new tax, fee and license the State demands cuts into that.  People aren't in business for philanthropy, they're in it for success and money.  Profits are NOT evil -  if nothing else, without them who would be footing bills like this?

The Boston Globe actually tries to spin her comments as conservative, if you can believe it.  It's an interesting take, but what author Ben Jacobs misses is that for conservatives, a good faith 'social contract' between the factory owner and the taxpayers who pay for the infrastructure upon which he is dependent isn't about an unspecified increase in taxes (how much is fair? when is it enough?) or punishing regulation.  The factory owner fulfills his obligations by giving the homeowner whose property taxes paid for the infrastructure a silly little thing called....a job.  You know, the thing people do to earn the money to pay the property taxes to keep the road that they themselves use every day to get to work at the factory or one of the many other businesses that crop up around manufacturing centers like restaurants, shops, hotels, apartment complexes, car dealerships - need I go on?

By the way, isn't it interesting how greedy old business owners apparently don't pay any taxes at all?  At least, that's how progressives make it seem lately.  (Maybe it's because so many of the progressive cronies business owners they know don't)  So we're to believe there are no property taxes on the building housing the factory - no permits, fees or licenses needed, at the very least?  What about business taxes?  Payroll taxes?  Or don't those count?  Some go into the federal piggy bank, others to state and local.  But make no mistake, everybody gets a slice - including the workers who take their portion as paychecks, perks and bonuses.

Yes, there is a social contract between a large business and the community that supports it.  It is a symbiotic relationship that, when done right, nurtures and supports both parties.  Many businesses even participate in community outreach such as Target, who partnered with Oprah Winfrey to give my daughters' school a new library in appreciation for their dedication to promoting reading.  Just think of it as private sector voluntary redistribution of wealth from Target to the kids of Ocoee Middle School.  But when government steps in and begins punishing businesses for their success through excessive regulation and confiscatory taxation, they are not only sabotaging the businesses, but the communities with whom they are so closely tied by taking the resources that would have gone into the local community and redirecting it to Washington. 

As of now, Warren is the front runner in her race against Brown for the Senate.  It will be interesting to see how her comments are taken by the Massachusetts public.  We truly are at a crossroads with the 2012 election.  Which will we choose - a further slide into the floundering European model of high unemployment, high taxes, excessive regulation and low productivity or a return to the founding principles of smaller federal government, more power to the states and, above all, fiscal sanity.  If Warren remains the front runner, it will be clear that there really is a desire to punish the private sector and grow the public as the press has been claiming.  There was certainly no ambiguity in her statement to confuse voters about where she stands.  She has pinned her hopes on class warfare and redistributionism.  If Brown retakes the lead, well...if even uber-liberal Massachusetts gets it, there's hope for the rest of the country.

UPDATE:  Oh dear God in Heaven.  Looney old Paul Krugman is calling Warren a "financial reformer" whose "eloquent" comments have spoken truth to power.  If by "financial reform" you mean more of the same tax and spend policies that the democrats have been shoving down our throats for decades (and really put on steroids since 2007) then sure, she's a real "reformer". 

Read more...

"NOBODY IN THIS COUNTRY GOT RICH ON THEIR OWN" Updated

A BUFFETT OF MONEY

Billionaire hedge fund guru Warren Buffett was the latest progressive recently calling for higher taxes on the rich* with an op-ed in the New York Times (somebody please send him this link).   He claims he only paid seventeen percent in taxes last year; far less than others in his own company:

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Why do they feel so compelled?  Are these "blessings" being showered upon them done out of the kindness of legislative hearts, or could there be other, more base reasons?  Could it possibly be the millions of dollars people like Buffett shower on political campaigns?  Perhaps the one-on-one exposure with certain members of government - exposure of which their own constituents (and the ones who ultimately pay the price for these dealings) can only dream?  Or maybe the odd coincidence of so many former federal employees finding themselves jobs on Wall Street or K Street with the help of crony connections?  A spotted owl is made endangered through no fault of it's own.  The same cannot be said about the 'coddled rich'.  It's called corruption, Mr. Buffett, and you are complicit.

In his op-ed, he raises good points about capital gains and other loopholes but ultimately, he isn't looking for tax reform, he's calling for tax increases. 

Big difference.

What we need is tax reform - removing loopholes and carve-outs and widening the tax base.  So why would he call for tax increases instead?  Well, it seems there is a little piece of information that Mr. Buffett and the NY Times forgot to mention (full disclosure is for suckers).   Apparently Mr. Buffett's company offers certain investment plans that, if taxes were to go up, would see a marked increase in business due to their sheltering natures, and thus a tidy profit for Mr. Buffett.  Who will then instruct his small army of tax attorneys and accountants - who surely couldn't be part of the reason he only paid seventeen percent - to find every loophole possible (conveniently provided by his pals in Congress after some vigorous lobbying) to keep from paying as little of the new taxes as possible. 

What a racket.

Lets not forget, too, that he gets to play the patriotic hero, swooping in to the rescue as well as giving his good buddy Obama a nice little talking point for the campaign trail.  Everybody wins!  Well, except the middle class, whose 'millionaires and billionaires' in the $200,000 tax bracket take one on the chin.

But wait, there's more!

Not only will Buffett profit quite tidily by the increase in business, but it turns out Omaha's favorite son's business has had a bit of a problem paying it's taxes.  It seems that Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett's influential investment firm, hasn't paid it's taxes in almost a decade - since 2002, to be exact. 

Which begs the question: Why, exactly, he is demanding taxes be raised because of 'shared sacrifice', when he isn't even paying what he owes now?

But wait, there's more!

Last week, President Obama made a little phone call to his dear friend Buffett, giving him a heads up on the situation with the floundering  Bank of America.  Buffett had a bathtub epiphany and decided to invest $5 billion (the article is really wonky but highly enlightening)  in the company. Except he really didn't.  Technically, the warrants BofA offered him equals about half the amount he invested - $2.45 billion:

So Buffett is really only injecting $2.55 billion of new capital into Bank of America and receiving $300 million per year in interest (6% * $5 billion). If you divide $300 million by $2.55 billion, you get an effective interest rate on Buffett’s investment of 11.8%. That’s pretty expensive for a bank that claims it doesn’t need any new capital!

Guess what else he got out of the deal?  A nifty little tax break.  It doesn't take an oracle to see why he jumped all over this deal.  Did I mention Buffett is throwing a big fundraiser for Obama at the end of September?  Apparently the party favors will be back scratchers.

The only problem for Buffett is that it is beginning to seem like he is using his reputation of having a nose for deals to promote the Obama agenda and people are starting to question whether his famous instincts haven't been dulled by ideology.  The cash infusion into BofA was supposed to foster confidence.  Instead, there are grumbles about how much trouble the bank is really in. 

With our paychecks shrinking and the cost of goods rising, it's getting harder and harder to pay the bills and put dinner on the table.  Getting lectured by the billionaire buddy of the Spender-in-Chief about "shared sacrifice" as his political connections help him make hundreds of millions of dollars in profits while simultaneously evading taxes is rather hard to swallow.   


*  "Rich"  being 'millionaires' and 'billionaires' making a staggering $200,000 and up.  Also known as making enough to be taxed but not enough to be able to afford the accountants and lawyers to get out of the taxes, like real millionaires and billionaires.  Bye-bye small business and middle class!

Read more...

A BUFFETT OF MONEY

NOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL LAME

In a highly successful attempt to put the "lame" in 'lame-duck session', the Senate has illustrated once again why years of service do not necessarily add up to competence.

Yesterday, Senators were patting themselves on the back and touting their latest accomplishment, S510 - the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.  They sent out press releases and crowed about the bill practically being of a historic nature (aren't they all, these days?) because it is apparently one of the most major pieces of legislation to pass a lame-duck Senate session evah. 

Today, however, the miracle bill has been sent back to chambers as unconstitutional.  Ooops!  What makes it worse is that they were purposely focusing attention on what was originally an obscure bill so that they could toot their own horns and score a few political points.  If it had been allowed to continue unheralded, they could have quietly pulled it back with no egg on their faces. 

In Section 107 there is a set of fees, which are classified as revenue raisers.  According to Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution, only the House can create tax provisions.  The House holds the purse strings, not the Senate, and the Ways and Means Committee is preparting to "blue sheet" the bill, which will block it.  It's unclear whether the House will pursue a bill of their own - if they are, they'd better get cracking, because time is running out on the lame-duck session.

Perhaps there should be a requirement that our elected representatives, who swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, are actually familiar with the document.  This is Civics 101, for heaven's sake.

Read more...

NOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL LAME

YOU CUT

Congressional Republicans, headed by Minority Whip Eric Cantor have started a new website called "You Cut" that allows common Americans to vote for what spending cuts you want to see Congress adopt. 

This is an interesting idea, if it takes off.  They are offering up five different spending programs for the chopping block each week.  Whatever program earns the most votes from the public will be offered up for a vote in Congress the next week.  No doubt they will get a lot of flack and ridicule from the left over this one, but I personally think it's great for a few reasons.

First of all, it's fascinating to see all of the ways that Congress is wasting our money (and how much is being wasted).  You hear rumors about some of the crazy or unnecessary things our money is being spent on, but to see it in black and white on a Congressional website, well, it really puts it into perspective.  If you have high blood pressure or ulcers, you might want to medicate yourself before you check it out each week!

Second, in a political climate where it often feels like the train is out of control and heading off the tracks, this offers a way to give Congress your two cents on a very important issue - spending.  And not just spending in general, as we have been attempting to do with the Tea Parties - we're talking specific, targeted spending programs.  President Obama created the deficit reduction committee, but it won't be coming out with anything constructive until December, and doubtless there will be more in the way of taxation instead of spending cuts in their recommendations.  Increased taxation will only prolong our suffering - especially at the levels they will need to tax in order to make a dent in the deficit.  The only way out of this hole is through spending cuts.  Politicians hate spending cuts because someone always loses out and voters become alienated.  Perhaps if the cuts are brought to them by popular demand, they will grow some spines and do what's necessary to save this country from financial ruin.  Don't hold your breath, though.  These are politicians we're talking about, after all.

Finally, there are major political ramifications to this.  As I mentioned before, the left will attempt to ridicule the Republicans on this - after all, when they have no other defense, they always turn to derision.  The odds of the democrats voting down these proposed cuts are very high, but they need to really think before they do so.  Not only will they be voting down Republican introduced spending cuts at a time when they are trying to paint themselves as deficit hawks, but they will be voting down cuts that were presented to Congress by popular fiat.  They are used to thumbing their noses at We the Peons in general, but this will be a direct dismissal of what the American people want.  The big question is, will their unprecedented tone deafness go that far?

In order to submit your vote, you must give them an email address.  That's it.  No other personal information required.  You can vote more than once (I voted first for the Welfare Non-Reform Program and then the Subsidized Union Activities), and you can vote online or via text.  So check out "You Cut" on Eric Cantor's website.  Let me know what you think, and, as they say in Chicago, vote early and vote often!

Cross Posted at The Ripley Report

Read more...

YOU CUT

JUMPING BACK INTO THE VAT

Back in October, I wrote a post in The Ripley Report about the Value Added Tax.  I'm reposting it, because it is still relevant, seven months later.  There is an addition to the post, though.

According to the trial balloon the administration is floating lately about the VAT, it would be set at about 5%.  Don't expect it to stay that way very long.  Let's not forget that the federal Income Tax started at 1%.  European countries have VATs of about 20% or more. 

The fact that Nancy Pelosi is enthusiastic about the idea - and has been for a while - is nothing short of frightening.  Public opinion and the good of the country mean nothing to that woman.  If she wants the tax, she will move heaven and earth, break arms, bribe, threaten and browbeat to get what she wants.  Anyone who doubts that need look no further than the health care "debate". 

Without further ado, here's the Ripley Report on the VAT:

Thursday, October 8, 2009


JUMPING INTO THE VAT

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, on PBS's 'The Charlie Rose Show' Monday, said, "Somewhere along the way, a Value Added Tax plays into the - of course we want to take down the health care cost, that's one part of it, but in the scheme of things, I think it's fair to look at a Value Added Tax as well."

So what is a value added tax, anyway?

Well, the short answer is that it is a consumption tax that is added at each stage of production according to the value added to the product and included in the cost to the consumer.

The long answer? VAT is common around the world, and ranges from 5% all the way up to 25%, and would effect every good purchased. According to the Washington Post,

"a 25 percent VAT could do it all: Pay for health-care reform, balance the federal budget and exempt millions of families from the income tax while slashing the top rate to 25 percent. A gallon of milk would jump from $3.69 to $4.61, and a $5,000 bathroom renovation would suddenly cost $6,250, but the nation's debt would stabilize and everybody could see a doctor."

So a VAT would pay for our many entitlements, but we would feel it every time we purchased something. Don't forget, that VAT is in addition to whatever state sales taxes might be applicable. This is a hefty tax, and, although it technically is levied on manufacturers, the purchasing public will really be paying the price.

This is also a major redistributive mechanism, because a VAT of between 10-14% would generate enough revenue that families making under $100,000/year (about 90% of households) would be exempt from paying income tax, and even those in high tax brackets would enjoy a slight reduction in tax rates. Provided, of course, that the greedy little piggies at the Washington trough allow exemptions and reductions. I don't recommend you hold your breath on that one.

They will most likely attempt to spin it as a tax on all those mean old corporations who are - gasp - profiting from their endeavors. How dare they?! Businesses aren't supposed to make dirty old money, they're supposed to take care of us and give us stuff and be really, really nice and...hey, is that a unicorn peeping out from behind that pretty rainbow?

Back in the real world that all of us outside of D.C. have to live in, a VAT means that, while they can technically say with a straight face that this isn't a tax on the middle class, this is a tax on the middle class, and a big one, at that.

Read more...

JUMPING BACK INTO THE VAT

TEA PARTY ROUNDUP Updated

I went to the Fair Tax Tea Party on Thursday.  It was a smallish crowd, but there was plenty of passion.  The lowlight of the day was a gentleman who was passing out "Grayson for Congress" stickers.  I was with a friend who happens to be a reformed Hollywood Democrat, and his only comment on her sign was, "Are you really from Hollywood?"  She said yes and he just shrugged and moved on.  I guess a reformed Hollywood democrat is more than he wanted to deal with.  If she managed to see the light of reason even in the ultimate liberal bubble, there's probably no way in hell he's going be able to talk her back in!  You have to give him credit, I suppose, for braving the crazy extremist mob, right?  Perhaps Grayson was hoping the guy would get attacked or something and illustrate his narrative that the tea party is an unhinged fringe group.  Aside from the guy who used his sticker to blow his nose, things remained civil.  Here are some pictures from the event:

 

Here's the guy passing out Grayson stickers:

The guest speaker was Katy Abrams, who was the PA lady who spoke at Arlen Specter's town hall back in August:

She was a sincerely concerned citizen speaking from the heart.  In her speech, she described her ordeal with the press after her confrontation with Specter.  She went on MSNBC's Hardball with Larry O'Donnell, who made an example of her with his ruthless attacks - Beware, all ye who would stand up to the administration and it's minions.  He ripped her to pieces and spit her out in his quest to paint all tea partyers as know-nothings who have no right to speak their own minds.  Her speech was heartfelt and moving.

As obviously shaken as she was by the press ordeal, she refuses to let them get her down or make her quit.  She's just a stay at home mom, sure, but she is also a mama bear protecting her cubs' futures.  They can knock her down, but she will just get back up, dust herself off, and start all over again.  She is living proof that we can all stand up to "the man" and survive.  They are trying to intimidate us, make us doubt ourselves and give up hope, but we are made of sterner stuff than that.

We are, after all, Americans.  We should never, never be underestimated.

UPDATE:  Here is a great roundup of Tea Party crashers in San Francisco from Pajamas Media.  Check it out for some laughs.

Read more...

TEA PARTY ROUNDUP Updated

IT'S TIME TO PARTY!

Happy Tax Day.  Today, across the country, people are gathering to protest the taxation and radical left tilt of the current administration.  The tea parties, despite all of the media furor over alleged racism and violence, are exciting, energetic, downright friendly events.  It is always surprising that they are portrayed in the press as angry, hostile mobs. 

But are they a violent, fringe mob?  All evidence so far points to no. This, however, is the narrative the neoPravda media, good lapdogs that they are, have decided to go with, whether due to personal bias or adherence to party talking points.  The democrats' Alinsky based tactics require the demonization of opposition, and so, good radicals that they are, they are following the instructions to the letter.  It's a sad  illustration of their lack of creativity that they are resorting to the usual old, tired accusations of racism and stupidity.  People, you really need to freshen it up a little bit.  Recheck your Alinsky Rule #7 - "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."  Even radical activists get bored.

After eight years of Bush is stoooopid and the past two years of any dissent from the current radical agenda being called racist, it is definitely time for them to try something else.  It is a sad day when being called a racist is a joke or, God forbid, a badge of honor due to it's absurdity.  These days you just aren't a tea partyer worth your salt if you haven't been called a racist at least once.  Their overplayed, tattered race card is disintegrating before their eyes, but what else have they got?  They certainly can't argue the merits of their plans - if they could, their master-orator-in-chief would have managed to make the health care bill one of the most popular pieces of legislation in recent history, given that he has been desperately trying to sell it for well over a year now. 

The blatant lies about taxation that they have been attempting to disseminate are literally laughable.  They are now dealing with an electorate that is wide awake and paying attention to every little thing they are trying to do.  The usual lies just don't seem to work anymore.  The electorate are also managing to put all of the disparate pieces of the agenda together and thus envision the entire scope of the "transformation" Pelosi, Reid and Obama are attempting.  As with most arrogant foes who buy their own press, the lefties have completely underestimated their opposition and so are continuously being caught off guard by them and their grasp of what is happening.  Tea partyers have even managed to turn around the "teabagger" epithet:



The radical left have now found themselves in quite a dilemma.  They have carefully nurtured a narrative, but those rotten teabaggers have failed to prove their theory.  No matter how they goad, poke, and provoke conservatives, they refuse to sink to the level they are being accused of.  So now the left find themselves having to funlfill the narrative themselves and then blame the tea party for their antics.  An interesting idea, but one that always seems to backfire.  The recent blatant advertising for anarchists and other liberal allies to "crash" the tea parties is a perfect illustration of their desperation.  A putz named Jason Levin set up a website calling for radicals to infiltrate and subvert the tea party.  Apparently those stoooopid teabaggers are refusing to show their true racist, homophobic, mouthbreather sides, so the lefties are determined to do it for them.  Levin, however, is experiencing a bit of blowback.  He is a middle school teacher, and he is being investigated by the school board for using school computers to create and monitor his website.  He is also being investigated for possible attempts at identity theft (via Fox News):

“Some other thoughts are to ask people at the rally to sign a petition renouncing socialism. See just how much info you can get from these folks (name address, DOB, Social Security #). The more data we can mine from the Tea Partiers, the more mayhem we can cause with it!!!!” he wrote.


The state agency is investigating whether this is a hint at identity theft, and whether it is appropriate behavior for a public school teacher. It also will investigate charges that Levin used school computers during school hours to work on his Web site. Levin works at Conestoga Middle School's media lab and teaches 6th, 7th and 8th graders about computers and technology.

Do they really not realize how their tactics hurt their own cause?  Is this man really willing to steal people's identities in order to ruin their lives simply because they hold a different political philosophy?   Have we really sunk so low in this country?  When did the tenets of free speech and tolerance get stricken from the left's list of ideals?  These people are having conniptions about tea partyers metaphorically putting Nancy Pelosi on the firing line, as in, getting fired, not incitements to violence as the left attempts to paint it, but they have no problems with trying to destroy the lives of common Americans, whether it be through violence, threats or identity theft and exploitation. 

It almost seems that the anger directed at the movement is because of their refusal to live up (down?) to the expectations of the left.  Let's not forget, too, that lefties expect screaming invective and violence at rallies because that is the norm for them.  The fact that the tea parties, with crowds numbering in the thousands, are peaceful must just boggle the progressive mind.  How is it that they are managing to get their point across without burning flags, smashing windows and torching cars?

And so the lefties continue to push their narrative as best they can.  Unfortunately for them, camera phones are everywhere, and there is just no proof to back up their argument.  They are still trying to milk the allegations that the n-word was hurled not once, not twice, but fifteen times during the Congressional Black Caucus' symbolic march through the protesters the day health care passed.  Rep. Jessie Jackson, Jr. had not one but two video cameras panning the crowd as he walked, as well as numerous mainstream media cameras and the literally hundreds of camera phones in the audience, and yet there is not even a single instance of racist invective caught on film.  There is no doubt whatsoever that if such footage existed, it would be all over the news, even now, nearly a month later.

Tea partyers, be careful out there today.  Keep an eye out for protesters, and don't sign any petitions today - Jason Levin has made every petition suspect now.  But don't let these attempts to discredit and intimidate keep you from assembling.  Continue to prove the left's narrative wrong - be passionate but respectful, enthusiastic but controlled.  Isolate the infiltrators and show them for what they are.

If you go to an event, please send me your pictures and stories. Let's show the world that democracy in action can be peaceful.

Read more...

IT'S TIME TO PARTY!

RECONCILING RECONCILIATION Updated

President Obama just wrapped up another speech on health care (#35, to be exact).  In this (hopefully final) speech, he says the time for debate is over and the time to make decisions is upon us.  It is time for a straight up or down vote.

Okay, 52% of us say no.

Can we move on to the economy now, please?

If only it were that easy.  Unfortunately, The One is not interested in the opinions of the peasantry.  So with the rallying cry of "Damn the Tea Partiers, full speed ahead!" still ringing in their ears, the democrats are ordered by their Dear Leader to prepare for their kamikaze run.

I have been getting a lot of questions about how reconciliation works.  First of all, let's call it what it is.  Budget reconciliation.  This is a process by which already passed budgetary measures are amended - amendments are to either cut spending/taxes or increase spending/taxes in a budget.  When the lefties whine that the evil Bush used reconciliation to get his tax cuts through, yes, he absolutely did.  Because that is what the process of budget reconciliation is for. 

What budget reconciliation is not for is reshaping one sixth of the American economy and the creation of  a massive new entitlement.  According to Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), Chairman of the Budget Committee:



Yes, you may argue, but our esteemed president wants this to go through, and he thinks it is a good idea.

Really?

“He hasn’t gotten his way…uh…and that is now prompting a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate uh forever and uh what I worry about would be that you essentially have still two chambers the House and the Senate but you have simply majoritarian uh absolute power on on either side and that’s just not what the Founders intended.”

That was then-Senator Barack Obama back in 2005 talking about Satan himself - Bush.  Apparently the Founders only intended for the democrats to "change the character of the Senate uh forever". 

In order to manage reconciliation, the House will have to pass the Senate bill as is, and hope that the Senate will pass the amendments House democrats will demand in exchange for putting the Senate bill through.  That is going to take a lot of trust on their part, and it doesn't seem like it's there.   I can't say as I blame them - I wouldn't take the word of a politician, either.

If the House does manage to choke down the Senate version and pass it, then it will go to the Senate for reconciliation, where they will add in amendments to fulfill promises made to House democrats, such as banning abortion funding.  After that, a simple Senate majority of 51 is needed to pass the whole thing and send it up to Obama for a signature.

This also may mean adding in a public option - hell, why not?  In for a penny, in for a pound, right?  If they are going to ram it through against the American taxpayer's protests using a method not approved for this use, they may as well just shoot the moon!  What do they have to lose - an election?  No biggie.  They think passing this mess will guarantee them majorities for decades to come. 

It's still a toss up on whether they will be able to pass this hideous thing, but I can guarantee they are going to do everything they can.  They don't care if they are committing political suicide, because this isn't just politics for them.

This is ideology, and they will not be deterred, no matter how unethical the means by which they enact it.

BTW - The Weekly Standard has a rundown of the numbers Pelosi has to work with.  Let's hope it's true.

UPDATE: Hilarious!

Read more...

RECONCILING RECONCILIATION Updated

TIME TO WALK THE WALK, HOLLYWOOD

The Drudge Report's headline for this morning is "Couric Faces Pay Cut; Deep Layoffs Hit CBS News".  In the story, an unnamed sources is quoted as saying,

"She makes enough to pay 200 news reporters $75,000 a year!" demands a veteran producer. "It's complete insanity."

The angry source continues: "We report with great enthusiasm how much bankers are making, how it is out of step with reality during a recession. We'll look at Katie!"

Amen!  I'm getting really tired of the hypocritical demonization of parts of our society by other sectors that really should just shut the heck up.  What really gets my goat is that people like Katie Couric, Will Ferrell, Jim Carrey and Michael Moore (and most of Hollywood, for that matter) attack capitalism and promote their euro-socialist/neo-marxist views - often in really insulting, patronizing ways that make me want to smack them, quite frankly. 

Don't get me wrong - I love the fact that people can make ridiculous money in this country.  This is capitalism at it's best, and I define myself as a capitalist far more than a republican, democrat or libertarian.  I myself wouldn't mind commanding a multi-million dollar salary, and don't begrudge anyone else making it, provided it is earned.  It's the hypocrisy of the celebrity set that really chaps my hide.

The Hollywood elites love to talk about how stupid Americans are for not seeing their point of view.  This from morons who attack capitalism as fatally flawed - the very same evil capitalism that has made them multi-millionaires.  I have a rather long list now of actors and musicians that I refuse to support financially because of their obnoxious, elitist dismissal of the 'unwashed masses' and the capitalist system that took many of them from poverty and obscurity to the golden, decadent heights of prosperity and world fame.

What really kills me are people like Will Ferrell and Jim Carrey, whose movies barely make enough to cover their multi-million dollar salaries and threaten the entire studio with financial implosion, and yet they sit on their high horses and attack CEO's and bankers for their multi-million dollar salaries.   Even better, they feel they have the right to preach to us about policies they know nothing about.

Well, those companies have been bailed out or subsidized with taxpayer money, they argue, so they should be demonized - they wasted our money!  Oh, that's right, I forgot - movies don't get any subsidies or tax breaks whatsoever.

Yes, I'm tired of bank bailouts.  Yes, I think CEO's and bankers making enormous profits on failed businesses is criminal.  But I also think that the same thing is happening in Hollywood and in sports. 

A great example is the obscene amount of money Conan O'Brien just made to effectively do nothing for three years.  And how did his working class staff fare, after uprooting themselves from NY to LA?  They sure didn't end up with $30 million and a three year hiatus.  Granted, they ended up splitting $12 million in severance, but, considering he had about 200 staff members, that equals about $60,000 per person - not a lot of money for LA.  Conan is getting lots of kudos for his role in demanding severance pay for his people, and I agree with that - if he hadn't, those people would have gotten nothing.

But think about it this way - if he were a Wall Street banker who had to shut down his business and paid his staff $60,000 while he walked away with $30 million, people would be calling for his head - with a huge portion of those calls originating in Hollywood.  But because he is a celebrity, they instead celebrate his generosity and consideration for his staff and make him into some sort of comedic Mother Teresa.

I took my kids to see Avatar at the Imax over the holidays, and for the four of us, it cost $60+ dollars, just for the tickets.  Add in popcorn and drinks and maybe a box of Sno-Caps and some Twizzlers, and you are easily looking at a $100 layout.  Did I mention it was a matinee?  Thankfully, it was a fantastic movie and we had a great time, but how often can you say that anymore with all of the cheesy remakes and really blatantly bad movies Hollywood has been pumping out over the past few years?  I know we won't be setting foot in a theater again until Iron Man 2 comes out - only real blockbusters are worth the outlay anymore, and even then we have been sorely disappointed.

I love professional football and hockey, and love seeing the games live, but have not done so in about a decade because a day at the stadium now costs an average of about $400 for a family of four.  If you are a Dallas fan, you can expect to pay about $700+.  My point is that the cost of those millionaire salaries and big, expensive stadiums is passed directly to us, the consumer, just as the cost of those Wall Street salaries is ultimately picked up by the American taxpayer. 

So if all of those Hollywood socialists are so hot to 'spread the wealth around', they should start with their own wealth, and leave what little I have alone.  It's nice to know that there are some, like those at CBS, who are starting to see that.

Hollywood has been talking the Progressive talk for decades - now it's time to walk the walk.  Put your money where your mouth is, Mr. Ferrell.  Stop living off the same teat you demonize, Mr. Moore.  You want a fair and free society, Mr. Penn?  How about you accept $150,000 for your next role, with no points on the back end, just a flat $150, like your cameramen make? 

If you want to foist the socialist utopia on us, you damn well better be prepared to join the ranks.  If not, shut the hell up.  I could care less what your views are on the world.  I don't make it a habit to take life advice from people who pretend for a living.  Many of them can't even string two sentences together without a writer putting the words in their mouths - a trait they seem to have in common with the Teleprompter Kid, now I think about it (btw, you'll thank me if you click the teleprompter kid link - too funny!).

As for Couric, well, she was a waste of money from the get-go.  I can't wait to see her response to the possibility of having her wealth 'redistributed'....

Read more...

TIME TO WALK THE WALK, HOLLYWOOD

REALITY BREAKTHROUGH?

There is a fascinating op-ed by columnist Bob Herbert of the NY Times that deserves attention. 

Mr. Herbert, it is safe to assume, is left of center.  HIs columns run from social trends to politics to urban affairs, but always with a liberal viewpoint.  It was with much surprise that I saw this article from him in the Headlines section of Hot Air (I don't really make a practice of reading the NY Times if I can avoid it - I get dizzy from the spin and my stomach just isn't up for it anymore).

The article discusses the true ramifications and sneaky hidden taxes that the democrats have set us up for. 

It is a surprisingly frank and critical piece, which gives me hope that there are some rational people out there who aren't blindly following the party line.  It really starts out with quite a bang:

There is a middle-class tax time bomb ticking in the Senate’s version of President Obama’s effort to reform health care.

He goes on to describe the "confiscatory 40 percent tax" on Cadillac health plans.

In fact, it’s a tax that in a few years will hammer millions of middle-class policyholders, forcing them to scale back their access to medical care.


Which is exactly what the tax is designed to do.

\He goes on to explain how the rising costs of health care are going to eventually lead to an increase in the number of families hit by this tax. 

Within three years of its implementation, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the tax would apply to nearly 20 percent of all workers with employer-provided health coverage in the country, affecting some 31 million people. Within six years, according to Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, the tax would reach a fifth of all households earning between $50,000 and $75,000 annually. Those families can hardly be considered very wealthy.

Finally, somebody on the left gets it!  Not only that, but he also sees the "dirty little secret" of the bill:

Proponents say the tax will raise nearly $150 billion over 10 years, but there’s a catch. It’s not expected to raise this money directly. The dirty little secret behind this onerous tax is that no one expects very many people to pay it. The idea is that rather than fork over 40 percent in taxes on the amount by which policies exceed the threshold, employers (and individuals who purchase health insurance on their own) will have little choice but to ratchet down the quality of their health plans.

According to Herbert. this means saying buh-bye to dental, vision, and mental health coverage.  I guess those things aren't a right.   The whole purpose of health care 'reform' was to bring down costs, wasn't it?  Well, it turns out that this bill is actually going to cost us a hell of a lot more than if we were to just allow the current system to 'skyrocket' like they keep squawking about. 

So on top of our regular premiums (which most liberals will happily concede are too high - thus the desperate need for health care 'reform'), we will have to pay a 40% tax.  Okay, we don't want to pay the tax, so we decide to get cheaper insurance, usually meaning less insurance.  Which means we pay less right?  Technically, yes, but not really, because now we will have higher deductibles, so in an effort to save on those costs, we will be less likely to go to the doctor.  Good for the system - keeps wait times down - but bad for us, because that also means there will be more people waiting until a condition really gets bad before getting treated.  This, of course, means more expensive treatments - a larger portion of which will be coming out of our own pockets.  Gee, whatever happened to more preventative care, anyway?  This bill is the exact opposite of that promise.  Seems to be par for the course, these days....

But I digress.  There are just so many points of attack on this bill that it is easy to get sidetracked.  Let's get to the dirty little secret that "requires a monumental suspension of disbelief":

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, less than 18 percent of the revenue will come from the tax itself. The rest of the $150 billion, more than 82 percent of it, will come from the income taxes paid by workers who have been given pay raises by employers who will have voluntarily handed over the money they saved by offering their employees less valuable health insurance plans.


Can you believe it?

So...now the liberals are telling us that the greedy corporate fat-cat pillagers are going to take the savings they will be raking in from the cheaper insurance policies their employees will be federally mandated and taxed into settling for will be rolled over into raises for said employees. Which our betters in government will then tax heavily to subsidize someone else's health care - quite possibly a nice little union cadillac plan with dental, vision and mental health coverage.  What are the odds that the formerly evil demonspawn CEO's (now reformed into kindly, benevolent givers of 'trickle-up' economic stimulus, apparently) will so generously reward their workers for the savings pouring into their coffers?  Mr. Herbert asks Richard Trumka, president of theAFL-CIO:

I had to wait for him to stop laughing to get his answer. “If you believe that,” he said, “I have some oceanfront property in southwestern Pennsylvania that I will sell you at a great price.”

Bah, that's just one guy, the liberals sneer.

A survey of business executives by Mercer, a human resources consulting firm, found that only 16 percent of respondents said they would convert the savings from a reduction in health benefits into higher wages for employees. Yet proponents of the tax are holding steadfast to the belief that nearly all would do so.

Hope springs eternal, no?

Mr. Herbert seems to be of the opinion that the powers that be need to level with the American public on the realities of this bill.  In a rare cry for truth and transparency from the left, he finishes as strongly as he started:

The tax on health benefits is being sold to the public dishonestly as something that will affect only the rich, and it makes a mockery of President Obama’s repeated pledge that if you like the health coverage you have now, you can keep it.


Those who believe this is a good idea should at least have the courage to be straight about it with the American people.

Amen.

So when do you think he will be denounced and ridiculed by the left for refusing to toe the party line?   I bet he was bouight by those mean old insurance companies....

Read more...

REALITY BREAKTHROUGH?

SO MUCH FOR AFFORDABLE

CNSNews has a report out on another little selling point for the senate version of ObamaCare. 

According to the article, families making more than $88,000 per year may be subject to a federally mandated insurance 'fee' of $15,200.

A family of four—two parents and two children—earning $88,200 would be at 400 percent of the poverty level this year, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. A family of four earning $88,201, therefore, would not be eligible for a federal subsidy to buy insurance under the Senate health-care bill. If the mother and father in such a family could not get employer-based health insurance—because their employers decided not to buy their workers insurance—the family would be required by law to purchase a policy with its own money that would cost an estimated $15,200 per year, according to the CBO.

In case you were wondering, a $15,200 'fee' on a family of four making $88,201  is roughly 1/6th of their income. 

What are the odds these workers will have to pay this premium?

The bill imposes a maximum fine of only $750 per worker on employers with more than 50 workers who do not buy insurance for their workers. Thus employers will face a choice: Pay the employer’s share of the insurance plans for their workers--including the employer's share for the typical $15,200 family insurance plan--or drop insurance for all their employees and pay a maximum fee of only a $750 per employee.

Hmmmm.  I really don't see a tough choice for employers, do you?

That little loophole was put in to guarantee that as many people as possible are put on the government plan, of course.  Single Payer or Bust, eh, Harry?

Combine this with Nancy Pelosi's version of health care, and not only will the cost of your insurance be steep, but so will the penalties for not getting it.  (via The Hill)

The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation reported that the House version of the healthcare bill specifies that those who don’t buy health insurance and do not pay the fine of about 2.5 percent of their income for failing to do so can face a penalty of up to five years in prison!


The bill describes the penalties as follows:

• Section 7203 — misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 — felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3] 

So, would that be the whole family in jail, or just the breadwinner?  May as well put the whole family in - at least that way they will be guaranteed three squares, cable tv and a roof over their heads.

The Progressive Agenda - destroying America one family at a time.

BTW - don't forget that on top of the new premiums, these families are also going to be taxed to within an inch of their lives to pay for the 18 million who are getting the subsidies that they can't....

Read more...

SO MUCH FOR AFFORDABLE

EPA JUMPS THE SHARK

Okay, the EPA has officially jumped the shark. 

Am I the only one who has a problem with the EPA declaring my very existence - the subconscious action of breathing - to be a hazard to human health and to the environment?  How can a gas that we exhale and plants inhale be toxic?

I feel like I'm living in '1984'.  Someday, when the corporate money flow dries up from excessive green taxation, are they going to start counting our exhalations and tax us accordingly?  Yeah, it seems a little ridiculous, but, hey, the foot is in the door now, so you just never know....

What this is really all about is a back door to Cap and Trade. 

The democrats know that Cap and Trade legislation is DOA.  The bill wasn't popular before ClimateGate; support is cratering now.

Al Gore's statement about AGW 'deniers' is classic projection (Hey Al - your desperation is showing):

The naysayers are in a sunset phase with a spectacular climax just before they subside from view.

Since the administration knows they don't have a chance in hades of passing their cap and tax scheme, they are going to use the EPA to call CO2 a  poisonous gas so that they can regulate and tax it that way. 

By hook or by crook....

Read more...

EPA JUMPS THE SHARK