"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

NEVER FORGET

It has been a struggle to write a post to commemmorate the tenth anniversary of September 11th.  It is still, even ten years later, such a difficult thing to come to grips with.  Watching the footage - planes flying into buildings, mushrooming clouds of orange flame and black smoke, people plunging to their deaths, the stunned, ash-covered survivors wandering through the debris after the towers came down - it's all still so sharp and painful, like a knife to the heart. 

So I've tried to focus on the silver lining, as I am wont to do.  The open wound that was Ground Zero in past years has given way to the rapidly climbing Freedom Tower, rising up towards its goal of dominating the American skyline 1,776 feet above the plaza surrounding the seemingly endless Footprint Waterfalls in Memorial Park. The memorial at the Pentagon with it's graceful commemmorative benches and their invitation for a quiet, pensive moment of reflection and the ever-growing memorial at Shanksfield are a testament to our deep desire to honor and remember.  But they are also symbols of our desire to move forward and show that we were bowed but not broken.  The American spirit will rise like a phoenix from the ashes of despair to greet the new day.  Morning in America will dawn once more.

The most important change this year, though, is that America finally got justice, and it seems to have changed the tone of the day. While it is still a sad, solemn occasion, it seems to be tempered this time; less anguished, more mellow. Perhaps it's just because ten years have passed, and time heals all wounds. But it's more likely because the focus of our national rage has been, literally, deep-sixed. We have closure. We were struck, and we struck back. The killing of Osama Bin Laden has done much to help the healing.  Does that make us bloodthirsty?  No, it makes us human.  Although we, in this most Christian of nations, prefer forgiveness to vengeance, we also recognize sometimes it is necessary to go a little Old Testament.  It's hard to imagine another event deserving of an eye-for-an-eye retributive strike (and for those who think 9/11 was an inside job, do they also believe President Obama is a murderer for killing Bin Laden who, after all, was an innocent man according to their theories?).  Bin Laden's death was a healing salve on the national wound; the final step in our recouperation.

On this tenth anniversary, there seems to be a bit of a feeling of letting go.  A real, solid sense of healing.  A new understanding that, truly, this too shall pass.  We must never forget the events of that day, or allow the issue to be clouded.  But we are learning that it is possible to be ever vigilant, that it's possible to pay homage, and yet still move on; to progress, to prosper, to thrive.  And therein lies our ultimate victory over those who sought to bring us low.  

Therein lies our power, the thing they will never understand.  When terror strikes at our hearts, it strengthens our resolve.  We will not cower like beaten dogs before a cruel master.  We are stronger than that.  We are better than that.  We are American.

Read more...

NEVER FORGET

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

THE OPTICS OF R&R

There has been a lot of argument this week over the First Family's current vacation on Martha's Vineyard.  Liberals argue that all presidents take vacations, they need vacations, and how dare anyone begrudge him a vacation! (and besides, the eeeevil Bush took, like, twice as many!!!1!)  Many conservative pundits have agreed with this argument, and for good reason.  Presidents never really take vacations.  Their staff travel with them everywhere (thus incurring a goodly chunk of the expense) and they are constantly being briefed - even on the golf course.  It is a ridiculously stressful job and no matter who is in the White House, a little time away from the official residence is understandable.

(On a side note: it doesn't really resonate, though, when he promises a new jobs plan...but we have to wait until he comes back from vacation to unveil it.  What?  Are you kidding? Granted, the August recess is rather long, but this isn't a tv show where there have to be cliffhangers to keep people tuned in.  It's real life and we're dealing with 9.1% unemployment here)

But let's put this in perspective, shall we? 

Yes,  George W. Bush spent a good deal of time of vacation - certainly more than President Obama at this point in his presidency (although the claims of only 26 days in Obama's three years in office is incorrect - that number was for his first year alone).  It is important to note that he went to either Camp David or his ranch in Texas for his vacations.  It should also be noted that several of those trips to the ranch were diplomatic or otherwise official business, not just pure pleasure.  An invitation to the ranch was a coveted thing back in the day, even for heads of state.  But even then, his vacation numbers are pretty high, and he got duly thwacked for it in the press. 

The thing is, aside from the travel expense of Air Force One and all that entails (can someone explain to me why the Obamas had to take two separate planes, four hours apart, for this trip instead of flying together?), Bush's vacations were relatively cheap for the taxpayers, as he and his staff were ensconced on his ranch.  This meant no buying up of entire floors of hotels, no room service, no inconvenience for other vacationers.  For the Bushes, the problem was the amount of time spent 'on vacation', not the expense of it.  Comparing the two is apples and oranges, but every liberal you discuss this issue with will bring up ad nauseum how many days Bush spent on vacation to keep from talking about the costs involved.  It doesn't matter what the true issue is.  They know which arguments they can win, and those are the arguments they are sticking with.

The First Lady is not immune from criticism either on this issue.  This Daily Mail article skewers Michelle Obama's expensive vacation tastes, so that naturally brings up the question of former First Lady Laura Bush's vacation habits in contrast.  Unfortunately for Mrs. Obama, she doesn't compare quite as favorably as she'd no doubt like.  It turns out that Laura Bush took a girls-only trip every year of her husband's presidency.   But whereas First Lady Michelle Obama's idea of a getaway with friends involves glitzy, paparazzi infested five-star resorts in Spain, Mrs. Bush preferred to quietly meet with old friends and go...camping. 

It's not the fact that the Obama's are vacationing that rankles - quite frankly many conservatives see their being away from DC for a few weeks as a welcome respite, if nothing else - it's where they are doing it, and with whom.  The Vineyard screams old money and privilege and in this economy, where many, many people are not only not taking vacations, but have no jobs from which to vacate, it really hits a sour note.

Expensive, extravagant vacations do not send out an "I feel your pain" vibe, especially when the public is on the hook for a large portion of the cost.  If the President or his staff were at all concerned with optics, they would have had the First Family vacation at Camp David.  It offers a lot for a young, active family - horseback riding, basketball, bowling, tennis, swimming, hiking, skeet shooting, even golf - with all the comforts of a top-notch resort and the added bonus of the appropriate optics for a man presiding over two (three? four?) wars and a down economy.  There is ample space for staff and Secret Service, it's secure and, most importantly, it's already paid for.

Camp David has been a favorite of Presidents since it was converted into a presidential retreat by FDR in 1942.  In times of war and peace alike, presidents vacationed there, cushioned in the lap of secure luxury.   True, Reagan loved nothing more than to vacation in exclusive, expensive Santa Barbara, but when he did, he was staying at his own ranch.  JFK frequently vacationed at expansive family homes in the elite stomping grounds of not just Martha's Vineyard, but posh Palm Beach Florida as well.  But President Obama does not have a family spread at the Vineyard, and while people are understanding about going home for vacation (even if home is a wealthy 'compound' or, say, Hawai'i), he has no roots there, no reason for the expense aside from the fact that they simply want to vacation at the Vineyard.  If they had decided to scrap their plans for the Vineyard this year and vacationed instead at Camp David citing sympathy for the suffering of their fellow Americans, there would probably have been an awful lot less grumbling and they might have even managed to turn it into a PR coup. 

Unfortunately, our president and his lady - chic, cool, hip young urbanites that they are - require more public digs, and damn the optics.  It's hard to imagine the level of headache this is for the Secret Service.  It's easy, however, to imagine the level of cost this incurs, and it's also easy to imagine who is picking up the bulk of the tab.   

The problem for the president is that, in his quest for reelection, he is trying to persuade the American people that he, too, is a simple man of the people - that he feels their pain and is sharing their sacrifice.  It's hard to paint someone who is hobnobbing with the elite in the poster town for wealth and privilege as an 'everyman' when the real everyman is taking a staycation (code for a week on the sofa with Netflix) and thanking their lucky stars that they have a job.  For now, at least.

Which is a concern the president might be more sympathetic with next summer.

Read more...

THE OPTICS OF R&R

THE SPENDING IS NUTS

My husband sent me this (thanks, Joe!), and I just had to post it.  It is a short film by Justin Folk called "The Spending is Nuts".  It's a charming story about a nation of squirrels gone awry.  This film is so good, you might even want to show it to your kids (via ebaums world):





Looks like it's up to us to give those squirrels a happy ending in 2012!

Read more...

THE SPENDING IS NUTS

ATTACK OF THE DEBT TERRORISTS

The best way to defang a verbal attack is to own the label being applied.  The past few weeks have shown that the newest label for Tea Partiers is "terrorist".  Perhaps it's because the accusing liberals are struck with fear every time they realize the Tea Partiers really were elected with a mandate, refuse to back down and actually gain strength by standing strong against politics as usual.  Perhaps it's just political hackery at it's most base.  But when even the Vice President is using the smear (a charge he has since denied), you know it's gone mainstream.   Go figure - the tea party movement is all about defusing the debt bomb progressives from both parties have spent decades building, but they are the terrorists.  Huh. 

So I have a suggestion. For all you tea partiers who are offended by the slur (as was I at first), rethink your offense. Let's take it and make it work for us. They want to call us terrorists?  Well, okay.  Let's take a look at the movement first, and what motivated it on it's current...well, for want of a better word, jihad.  It really has its roots in the Bush administration, specifically those who voted out republicans in 2006 due to their RINO tendency to spend like a debutant with daddy's credit card.  The grumbling grew in the summer of 2008 when the TARP scheme was hatched and ushered in the age of Obama.  The movement really exploded in 2009 in the run-up to the passage of the failed nearly trillion-dollar "stimulus" bill and has established itself as a fiscal conservative David battling the Goliath of tax and spend Washington.  They dealt the beast quite a blow last November and gained some power as a result.  The victims of the Tea Party onslaught were strewn across both sides of the aisle then; the only common thread being their profligate, politics-as-usual ways. 

It might help to swallow the bitter pill of the terrorist label to know that you are, actually, in excellent company. 

The newly minted "Debt Terrorists" should release their manifesto:

Be warned, all you big spenders on Capitol Hill, your days are numbered. The agenda is clear. There will be no stopping until these demands are met:

1) Cut spending on a deep, meaningful, long term level

2) Cap spending levels by tying them to GDP

3) Balanced Budget Amendment

4) Reform Social Security (a good place to start is means testing)

5) Reform Medicare (means test here, too)

6) Repeal of the economy killing ObamaCare legislation

7) Rein in the out of control EPA and NLRB

8) Revamp tax code - lower it, flatten it out and get rid of the loopholes

If you do not give in to these demands, you will be replaced with someone who will in the next election.  If you think we're not as good as our word, consider the sixty-three who didn't come back in 2010.  We mean business.

Please note "create jobs" is not on the list. Why?  Because government doesn't create jobs it only creates the conditions to create jobs, that's why. But if the things on that list are done, jobs will follow.

If that is what the left calls "terrorism" these days, then terrorists we are. And if part of the jihad is having to stomp on Harry, Barry and Nancy's toes to get them to open their mouths and take the medicine We the People voted for last year, well so be it. 

The debt jihad has begun.

Read more...

ATTACK OF THE DEBT TERRORISTS

CONGRESSIONAL HYSTERIA

The democrats' keening over the debt ceiling debate has reached such a fever pitch that the sound is rapidly reaching dog-whistle decibels.  It's quite amazing, really. 

First was President Obama's warning to seniors that if he doesn't get the plan he wants, Gramma doesn't get her check (baseless fear mongering, at best).  Ah, the Chicago way.  As Capone said, you can get much father with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word alone.  (so whatever happened to that "lockbox", if there's no money for checks, Mr. President?) 

Then came allegations that republicans are hoping for a default, which they can then somehow blame on President Obama (I'm not really clear on how that happens considering how well he polls against republicans on this issue but, like most things liberal, it requires a certain amount of blind faith, so just go with it).  Unfortunately, there are Tea Party members who don't want to raise the ceiling because they think either it is possible to avert surpassing the ceiling with spending cuts alone or that there won't be a default even if we pass the deadline.  Both of these notions are wishful thinking.  Period.  Something must be done, and it must be something that can pass BOTH houses of Congress, including the democratic majority in the Senate.  House Tea Partiers need to hold their noses and pass the Boehner bill and put it firmly in Harry Reid's court.  Once it passes the House, it's up to Reid to either table it or vote it down, and then he can deal with the fallout.  If, by some miracle it lands on Obama's desk, keep in mind that although the spending cuts are much smaller than hoped for, the tax increases Obama demanded aren't there at all and the ceiling increase is just as low as the cuts are; that's a win.  This bill will buy Congress six more months to debate real solutions, hopefully including entitlement reform and some seriously meaty cuts. 

Attempts have been made to play the race card in the debt wars, too - surprise!  But that's not the only fun we've been having with our calmer, gentler, less reactionary members on the left side of the aisle.  The Boehner plan, with its limited increase, would require another ceiling hike over the holidays, so of course the democrats have jumped on that one, too, claiming republicans hate Christmas or something stupid like that.  Speaking of gross exaggerations, check out these charts, which rebut the liberal argument that this debt crisis lies solely at the feet of the eeeevil Bush.  Just look at those numbers - nauseating, isn't it? 

Of course, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Shultz (or Debbie Downer, as I prefer) deserves a paragraph of her own for her unhinged, grossly false accusations.  How false?  Even liberal media are taking her to task on her lies.  From her accusations of Republicans hating women, seniors, and God only knows who else, to her allegations that republicans want to "literally drag us back to Jim Crow" (I'm not sure she knows what 'literally' means) or "throw us to the wolves", she's a real piece of work.  In fact, her rhetoric is so unhinged that, even as DNC chief, she isn't getting the kind of media play she was just a few short weeks ago.  My hometown newspaper, the Orlando Sentinel (hardly a conservative rag - we call it the "Slantinel"), even called her an embarrassment to her party.  Ouch!  The one thing I will say in favor of Wasserman-Shultz is that she was willing to do what no other democrat would - take ownership of the economy in the name of President Obama and the democrats.  Good on ya, Debbie.  (unfortunately, she thinks that's a good thing, because she thinks the economy is 'turning around'.  It seems high office does not necessarily denote high IQ)

But the pièce de résistance in this tour de force of hysteria comes from the one and only Queen Nan.  Ms Pelosi is sounding a bit, well.....unhinged (via Gretawire):

“What we’re trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget,” she said. “We’re trying to save life on this planet as we know it today.”

Good gracious.  Somebody needs a Xanax, stat!  Obviously clear heads are not prevailing if our Penelope Pitstop of the Hill is running around, arms flailing, shouting "Hey-elp!  Hey-elp!"  Sorry, Nanny P., Chugga-Boom and the Anthill Gang aren't members of Congress and they won't be riding to our rescue (although it does seem like Dick Dastardly has taken up residence in the White House and his good buddy Mutley is currently running the Senate).

It really seems all the democrats have to offer is demagoguery and derision.  Well okay then, guys - fair enough.  If you insist, the republican bills stink on ice and should never see the light of day.  Happy now?  Okay then, so WHERE'S YOUR PLAN????!

Quite frankly, put up or shut up.  Or better yet, both.

Read more...

CONGRESSIONAL HYSTERIA