Recently in Fiscal Policy Category

Could New Jersey governor Chris Christie be the next Ronald Reagan? It certainly seems like he's channeling the Gipper, and to good effect.

Probably one of his most Reaganesque moments took place during a town hall meeting.

One of Christie's most popular YouTube moments is a confrontation with an angry teacher, who upbraids him for not paying her enough. When Christie replies that if she doesn't like the pay package "then you don't have to do it," the crowd cheers like the Giants just scored a touchdown.

Listening to the teacher's complaints makes it quite clear she believes she's entitled to more pay, that it's owed to her. It turns out her salary at the time of the video was $86,389 per year, not including benefits. I don't know about you, but $86K per year is nothing to sneeze at. Christie was right to give her the answer he did. It also reminds us of another of Christie's Reaganesque moments.

Christie's cuts to school funding have earned him the enmity of the state teachers' union, with 200,000 members. The governor asked teachers to agree to a one-year salary freeze and to kick in 1.5 percent of their pay to help fund their health care insurance -- most of the state's teachers don't contribute to their plans.

Teachers in many school districts refused. As he had threatened during discussions with the unions, Christie called on constituents to vote down local school board budgets that didn't conform to his requests. Christie won the public fight. A surprising 58 percent of proposed budgets were defeated, making it the largest number of rejections on state record.

Just as Reagan did in 1981, when he faced off with the air traffic controllers union, Christie called the bluff and seems to have won.

How many times did Reagan go to the airwaves to ask the American public to contact their congressional representatives in order to get something he firmly believed was needed to fix the problems plaguing America through Congress? And how many times did they respond, giving the Gipper what he needed? It looks like Christie is following the same path and getting similar results.

The present governor of New Jersey bears watching as he goes over, under, around, and through the entrenched bureaucracies, union constituencies, and 'gimmee' special interest groups to put New Jersey's fiscal house in order.

When I see the elderly driving brand spankin' new cars, as is not at all unusual, I cynically think, "Their Social Security is paying the car loan." Does any one else think the gravy train will run indefinitely? I think we're rapidly heading for fiscal armageddon.

Meanwhile, I'm paying the taxes, bringing up the family, and driving the ten-year-old minivan that can be heard a tenth of a mile down the street with all its squeaking. There'll be no gravy train when I retire in approx. twenty-three years.

Most of what the gubmit spends is, in fact, on the elderly. And these programs are on autopilot. Only the military spending varies. Here are the facts, as presented by Dr. Walter Williams:

Federal tax receipts for 2009 totaled $2.1 trillion. The largest items in the federal budget were Social Security ($710 billion), national defense ($689 billion), Medicare ($456 billion) and Medicaid ($327 billion). The primary recipients of federal spending are seniors. Some of the letters argued that it's unfair to characterize what seniors are getting as handouts because they worked all their lives and paid into Social Security and Medicare.

Grandparents are stealing from their grandchildren.

Walter Williams has the data in "Who Cares About Our Future?":

As the various state primaries are held and incumbents from both parties are finding themselves being seriously challenged by newcomers, the question we must ask ourselves is will the voters back tough steps to reduce the deficits? So far the answer appears to be yes.

Despite the disdain that many in Congress feel for the American electorate, more of them are feeling the heat back home. Some have already lost their primary bids to run for re-election, becoming victims of hubris after they decided it was just a dandy idea to spend the nation into debt to a level never seen before with little hope of ever being able to pay it off. And should the Republicans manage to take back one or both houses of Congress, there's another question all of us have to ask them, that being do they "have the stones" to take the measures necessary to bring our government's fiscal house into order?

Reading comments to the two posts linked above it appears that a substantial number of people on the left cannot conceive of the actual size of the deficit or what it will take to fix it. More than one of those commenting wrote something along the lines of "All we need to do is slash defense spending and we'll have enough to pay for everything." All that phrase did was prove to me and others commenting that they really have no idea how much money we're talking about. As one commenter put it in response to the clueless:

If we cut defense spending to zero, we'd still have almost a trillion dollar deficit to deal with every year. Better to cut things that really do nothing more than suck up tax dollars with little, if anything to show for it.

This same commenter also brought up the point that defense is one of the duties of our federal government as defined in the Constitution. ObamaCare, Cap and Trade, corporate bailouts, union bribery, and government departments like the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, and a number of others are not. Yet we waste billions on them with little return for that 'investment' of our tax dollars except more needless regulation, more costs associated with complying with those needless regulations, and tighter restrictions on our economy's ability to function. How does any of this help anyone...except those in Washington wishing to exercise more power over our lives?

I have a feeling those in power are in for a rude awakening come this November and November 2012. A lot of them will be hitting the unemployment lines.

From this Cato @ Liberty blog we have this quite disturbing graph, showing why the political class in Washington DC is likely to be a recipient of a seismic shock come November:
"To be fair, Obama's predecessors -- particularly the previous Bush administration -- share in the responsibility for the mountainous rise in federal debt. However, that's all the more reason for the Obama administration to work toward a peak instead of a steeper incline."

This is a concept that needs to be repeated again and again and again until it sinks in to the minds of the Progressives: You cannot tax our way into prosperity.

Again and again it's been tried, even here in this country, and it's failed EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. Yet the Progressives are incapable of realizing a very simple and easily proven truth, that being you cannot enrich the poor by impoverishing the rich. Yet again and again they insist that in order to be "fair" they need to spread the wealth. Unfortunately they will quickly do away with what wealth there is (except theirs, of course) and make sure everyone is poor. As if that were somehow fair.

The argument they use is that the wealthy can afford confiscatory taxes. But for every means the Progressives come up with stealing what isn't theirs through taxation, the wealth producers find ways around them. And as the tax rates climb, they collect less revenue from the wealthy. Should it become bad enough, the wealthy will leave, taking their wealth with them. That's a lesson the UK learned during the 1970's, when their 'wealth' taxes caused a mass migration of wealth to more tax-friendly locations, with the end result being the collapse of the British economy.

Could the same thing happen here? Absolutely. We've already seen some elements of that occurring, with US corporations moving their 'headquarters' to tax-friendly nations like Bermuda, allowing them to greatly reduce the amount of corporate taxes they pay. Why? Because the US has some of the highest corporate taxes in the world. Only a sucker or an idiot wouldn't make moves to lessen their tax burdens if at all possible.

Now that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, and Dodd have decided the rich are the problem, they've been wasting no time trying to figure out even more ways of extracting money they did nothing to earn to give to their 'core' constituents, meaning not the average working man or woman. One commenter to the piece linked above has some of it figured out.

[They] are not really interested in raising revenue - but to continue punishing those that have money - ... It is as simple as that.

They are so envious of those that can create wealth, that the only thing Obama and his ilk can do is grab onto as much as they can, spread the misery and distribute anything they can grab - The fact that they may have less to distribute is also irrelevant - As long as those that have money feel the sting, Obama is happy - and when those that have money do whatever it takes to try and escape the taxman, the misery creators, Obama will keep turning the screws ...

The Progressive mindset does not allow them to think anything other than wealth is a 'zero sum' game. That means they believe that if someone became wealthy it was because they stole it from someone else and made them poor. It appears it is hard for many of them to believe the wealthy became that way through hard work, long hours, and taking risks others were not willing to take. That many Progressives in government have managed to become wealthy through their government connections and not through the traditional American system of hard work again leads far too many of them to think their way is the only true way to become wealthy. It is true in a kleptocracy, something it seems a lot of Progressives are working very hard to create. One thing they have overlooked though is that most kleptocracies are Third World nations, with a vast majority of their populace living in poverty because that's exactly the way the kleptocrats in power want it. The Progressives in this nation are no different, though they'll try to pretty up their attempts in mind-numbing governmentalese and politically correct speech, trying to make it seem as if it's a good idea.

In the end, though, it all comes down to envy. Democrats, and particularly the Progressives within the party, envy the successful. It's all they have that might reach others of the same bent of mind. They'll work hard to take away what the successful have made, but won't work that hard to make themselves successful. They are, as Ayn Rand described them, looters.

But all of that aside (I do go off on tangents, don't I?), what Laffer describes, what most Americans understand, and what the nation needs can be broken down into two simple sentences, provided by yet another savvy commenter:

Who cares if tax breaks don't fill the pockets of lower wage earners (like myself)? If raising taxes doesn't help the economy, then don't do it. (Emphasis added)

Indeed!

Democracies, being run by the majority, often can't handle the truth. For example, we have a panel of experts on Fox in 2006 laughing at Peter Schiff's arguing that, on the cusp of the housing collapse, we were, ahem, on the cusp of a housing collapse. Watch the rest of the panel members just laugh at him.

Now who's laughing?

I think we have a similar situation involving IQ, which is largely genetically inherited. And, yes, some groups like blacks don't perform as well as whites or Asians because they're not as smart on average. Asians outperform whites, though the difference isn't as great. See this article of a conservative Senate hopeful in Wisconsin having to defend himself for permitting Charles Murray, the co-author of _The Bell Curve_, to speak at a local forum. I love Murray's email response on page 4 of the newspaper article:

Murray told The Northwestern his theory is backed by IQ test data showing Japanese and Chinese students score higher on visual-spatial components of IQ tests than whites of European origin. He said that pattern is observed in both Chinese raised in China and Chinese Americans whose families have lived in the U.S. for multiple generations.

"Can you think of any explanation of this pattern that does not involve genes?" he wrote in an e-mail to The Northwestern. "The hand-wringing reaction of the council member, and of everyone who gets upset by any mention of ethnic differences is, in my view, childish."

That would be you, Larry.

Entitlement spending is clearly unsustainable. Here's the USAT. Look in the mirror, people:

The cost of government benefits for seniors soared to a record $27,289 per senior in 2007, according to a USA TODAY analysis.

That's a 24% increase above the inflation rate since 2000. Medical costs are the biggest reason. Last year, for the first time, health care and nursing homes cost the government more than Social Security payments for seniors age 65 and older. The average Social Security benefit per senior in 2007 was $13,184.

"We have a health care crisis. We don't have an entitlement crisis," says David Certner, legislative policy director of the AARP, which represents seniors.

Gubmit workers in California. Is the gig up, wonders Neal Boortz? I hope so.

A lot of people on the left don't make much of the difference between the voluntary and involuntary society. But there's a world of difference in my choosing to purchase an iMac instead of a PC, notwithstanding the dominance of Microsoft's position (I should almost say "former dominance."), and whether I can choose to pay Uncle Sam.

Clearly we're Greece minus five or ten years when it comes to public sector unions. I now will call them what RFK called the Teamsters, "the Enemy Within."

Right here. Thanks, CBO, for finally telling us what we already knew. The deficit will grow as a result of covering more Americans and non-Americans with Nancy Obamareid Care. Good heavens! There's a reason these sorts of massive bill shouldn't be rushed through.

It's bad when the folks running the government here in the US choose to ignore what's happening in other socialist countries (something they're trying very hard to turn the US in to) in regards to what occurs when the socialist system runs out of other people's money to pay for all the services and entitlements the system put into place.

Greece is merely the latest example of that, where the government can no longer support all those people they've made dependent upon the state for everything. The proles are upset now that the Greek government is broke and is putting austerity programs into effect, cutting budgets with a meat ax and doing likewise with entitlements (pensions, health care, unemployment, graft, corruption, and a whole host of other things that go along with a socialist state).

When the proles found out that the nanny state could no longer pay for all those neat things they were used to getting for 'free', they revolted, rioting in the streets and burning a bank (or two or three). It is somewhat reminiscent of the collapse of the ultimate socialist state, the Soviet Union, when the biggest socialist experiment in history came to an end after 74 years because their economy collapsed, mostly because of their economic model was seriously flawed (We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us). Unfortunately Greece followed a similar model and we can all see how that's worked out.

Now Greece expects the rest of the EU (and the US) to bail them out of the economic problems of their own making. Frankly, I don't think anyone should bail them out because they won't learn anything if we do. All a bailout will do is delay the inevitable: another request/demand for another bailout later. Greece will have no real incentive to fix their economic problems if they know the EU and/or the US will come to their rescue. All it will do is make them as dependent on us as their people have become dependent on them. They'll still be using other people's money to fund their bankrupt policies. It will be a vicious cycle that will merely prolong the pain.

It's a scenario we could easily fall into if we follow the same path. But we'll have no recourse but to bite the bullet and discard socialism as the failed experiment it is because there will be no one out there capable of bailing us out. Greece is an object lesson that far too many in Washington are ignoring as much as possible because it goes against everything they've been indoctrinated to believe. Heaven forbid if their utopian vision should be proven to be nothing more than a pipe dream.

Back in June 2008, I predicted the Law of Unintended Consequences would assert itself in regards to the increase of the minimum wage.

Time has proven me right.

A sign of those unintended consequences can be seen in a memo from an employer to his employees, explaining why he's cut back on their hours across the board even though he wishes he could give them all the hours they'd like.

This is yet another example of how government intervention in the economy has a negative effect that far outweighs any possible positive effect that was used as the justification for such an intervention. Something as simple as raising the minimum wage 40% over three years can turn a money-making business into a money-losing business in very short order. I don't know of any business (other than government) that can absorb a 40% increase in labor costs and not suffer the consequences.

This letter to the editor appeared in Monday's Laconia Daily Sun. The author, one E. Scott Cracraft managed to use every single discredited and bigoted cliché in the book in his effort to paint the TEA party and its activists and supporters as the next Nazi Party. Originally I thought to just post it and my reply and leave it at that. But after rereading Mister Cracraft's diatribe, I realized what it really deserved was a complete fisking to show what a clueless and unthinking "useful idiot" he has become.

In spite of the efforts by the Tea Partiers (and the corporate media) to make the "Tea Party" movement appear "mainstream," the movement's "core" is far from mainstream. This movement includes people who arm themselves to overthrow a legally elected government. In some states, they have advocated succession from the Union. Some anti-Obama activists have even gone as far as calling for a military coup against the Obama administration.

This guy has tried to tie just about every fringe group he can think of to the TEA party movement. I'm surprised he hasn't tried to include the Weather Underground. Oh. Wait. It's President Obama who has ties to members of that domestic terrorist organization!

Cracraft's accusations ring hollow if for no other reason that there's been absolutely no evidence tying any of the militia groups to the movement. The "core' as he calls it has no desire to overthrow the government except by the same means the present government came to power - the ballot box. But there will be one difference: we won't need to stuff ballot boxes or commit massive voter fraud in order to throw the bums out.

The Tea Partiers also include religious conservatives who have forgotten that the U.S. Constitution does not make the American Republic a "Christian Country" but rather separates church and state while providing the most religious freedom possible. Others want to ban a woman's right to reproductive freedom. Interestingly, these same people who cry out against abortion also judge "welfare moms" for having too many babies! And yes, in spite of the movement's public rejection of racism, there are some racists in that movement These people cannot accept the fact that the American people (and the Electoral College) elected an African-American President with a "foreign" sounding name. Many of these are "Birthers," who even question President Obama's right to be president even though he won the election fairly and legally. No mainstream politician of either party has supported this lie but this urban legend persists, largely due to some of whom are in the Tea Party movement or who support it.

This country was first settled by religious refugees seeking to be free to practice their religion without interference from either their rulers or the established churches. Cracraft seems to forgotten this as well as the Constitution states there is a freedom of religion, not just freedom from religion. Over the past 50 years or so too many in this country have done their best to drive free expression of religious belief underground as if it were a dirty little secret to be hidden away from prying eyes. They have used the courts to redefine the meaning of the First Amendment in such a way as to ban almost all public displays of belief. Being a person of faith is not a disqualifier for holding public office, despite what Mr. Cracraft would apparently like to believe.

He also seems to believe that only the TEA party has racists. I hate to disillusion him, but there are far more racists within the Democratic Party than the TEA parties. He also ignores the fact that quite a few TEA party supporters voted for Obama and have since come to see him for the disingenuous big-government socialist he is. That isn't racism. That's regret. The only similarity between the two is that they both begin with the letter 'r'.

Then too, the anti-immigrant sentiment on the part of many Tea Partiers can be construed as racist. I rarely hear those opposed to immigration reform talking about white, European immigrants. It is usually about Asians, people from the Middle East, and Hispanics. Racist or not, there does seem to be and element of the "politics of meanness" among the Tea Partiers.

We aren't anti-immigrant. Many of us are immigrants or children of immigrants. We are anti-illegal immigrant. There's a big difference between the two. It's possible Cracraft is incapable of telling the difference because to him all the illegal immigrants are future Democrat supporters...once they can figure out a way to grant them amnesty and a short ride to citizenship. Never mind the legal immigrants such a move will screw over.

Conservatives have frequently criticized liberal presidents in the past, including President Clinton, but no conservative has gone so far as to question their qualifications to serve. "Red-baiting" has become common on Tea Party signs and at Tea Party gatherings. No liberal candidate has been called a "communist" or a "traitor" to his or her country in a long time. This includes people that are more liberal than Obama. The Constitution, in order to protect our political freedom, narrowly defines what "treason" is and I fail to see how our current president fits this definition. Thus, I cannot help but believe that there is a strong racist element in the movement against President Obama.

As the old saying goes, "You shall know them by the company they keep." It is Obama who has consorted with known and self-avowed anti-American terrorists (Bill Ayer and Bernadine Dohrn, just to name two). It is Obama who, for almost 20 years, attended an unabashedly racist church with a pastor who spouted bigoted, racist rhetoric and called upon God to damn America, much like any radical Muslim cleric.

Of all our previous Presidents, only Obama has worked so hard to conceal his past, the details of his upbringing, his scholarship, and his vital statistics. Every other President's life was an open book. But not Obama's. We know nothing of his academic achievements. We know nothing of any articles or papers he might have authored while editor of the Harvard Law Review. And what we do know of his time at HLR is not flattering, with more than one colleague of his from his time there saying he was basically a do-nothing editor-in-name-only, deigning to grace the others working there with his presence from time to time and not much more.

The Tea Partiers are not engaging in "mainstream" talk. They have an extreme reactionary agenda which should be a concern of every American. They are using violent language, arming themselves, and even calling themselves "right wing terrorists." I have to laugh when a self-commissioned militia "colonel" spoke of defending themselves against leftists at a recent Tea Party in Washington. In case you have not heard, armed left-wing groups in the United States pretty much died out with the Weather Underground in the 1970s. It is not the liberals or progressives who are dressing up in camouflage and conducting field maneuvers utilizing automatic weapons (I think the Second Amendment calls for a "well regulated militia" with a chain of command subordinate to the elected civilian authorities and not a bunch of grown boys playing army in the woods). Nor is it the liberals and progressives who are making death threats to members of Congress with whom they disagree.

There he goes again, painting a picture of the TEA party supporters as fringe militant wackos. Well guess what? All these guys are are fringe element wackos, but they aren't TEA party folks. They have as much to do with the core of the TEA party movement as you do, which means none.

If all he knows of the TEA party is what he's seen on TV or from the New York Times, Washington Post, the Huffington Post, or the Daily Kos, then Cracraft is so mis- and un-informed as to be laughable. Not one of these 'sources' is reliable, unbiased, or without a political agenda that does not have the good of the American people as their focus. Like any media source, left or right, they can't be trusted. The fact that he appears to do so shows he's become incapable of thinking for himself and can only parrot what these sources have programmed him to say.

Some Tea Partiers, in their literature and websites, even call for employers to fire liberal employees simply because they are liberal. It does not matter what the employee's work performance is like. They also want to remove liberal teachers from our schools whether or not they are good teachers. They even encourage their followers to break off social relations with liberals and to totally marginalize them. And they accuse liberals of "intolerance?"

I've heard this claim, but I haven't seen a shred of evidence. He's made the claim. It's up to him to prove it.

I know I don't want the good teachers to be fired. But what I don't want are educators that aren't teaching what they're supposed to be teaching and are instead indoctrinating our children, teaching them what to think, not how to think, how to reason things out on their own. These days far too many of our kids are coming out of school totally unprepared to make it in the real world. They haven't been taught the critical thinking skills that will allow them to succeed away from the indoctrination centers we call schools. All they've been taught is how to allow others to think for them and to not question what they've been told.

As far as tolerance is concerned. The most intolerant people I have come across in my life have all been liberals. For them, tolerance is something other people must have, not them.

The Tea Partiers and their ilk protest and claim that as a "grass roots" movement, they are not responsible if there are some "wackos" in their ranks. But, while urging the American people not to "paint them with the same brush," the Tea Partiers seem to paint all liberals and progressives as Marxists, communists or terrorists, if not worse. And, I am not sure that they are even using these terms accurately. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that many of their opponents tend to paint them as "racists" and "fascists."

When a large majority of the liberals/progressives in power spout Marxist/Communist ideals and support leftist/fascist dictators over democratically elected governments, then yes we'll call them Marxists and Communists and fascists.

When our President insults our staunchest allies and embraces our enemies with open arms, then yes, we will paint him with the same broad brush. To quote yet another old saying, "By their actions you shall know them." So far our President's "smart diplomacy" has done more damage to America's foreign relations in a little over a year than eight years of Dubya's presidency.

One also has to be cynical about the "grassroots" label: the Tea Partiers and their Tea Parties are being funded by some very wealthy conservative interests. Some of these interests do not want banking reform. Others have a personal stake in seeing that meaningful health care reform is eventually defeated. How else could Sarah Palin pull down $100,000 per speech? Also, one look at a typical Tea Party website shows the movement's close association with extreme right-wing national movements and organizations.

Oh, really?Just who is financing the TEA party movement? I notice he didn't name names. He made the claim, it's up to him to prove it.

On the other hand, the Democrats, and particularly the extreme left-wing of the party, has been heavily financed by multi-billionaire George Soros, an unabashed socialist (his claim, not mine) and someone who is not a friend of the American people. Like most on the Left, he believes we aren't capable of making our own decisions and he's willing to spend his billions to make sure our ability to do so will be stripped from us, one step, one right at a time. Also, much of the Hollywood elite are willing to support political causes most Americans find repugnant. They pour millions into the Democrat party to help elect candidates that are more than willing to dismantle the Constitution because we're too stupid to understand that we need the morally bankrupt progressives to tell us what we need.

As to Sarah Palin's $100,000 speaking fee: So what? When she speaks at TEA party functions she has given that money to help fund the movement on more than one occasion. Bill Clinton pulls down that much for the same thing, but Cracraft hasn't asked who's financing his speaking engagements, has he? It's a specious point. Get over it.

I have no doubt that there are well-meaning members of the "silent majority" in the Tea Party movement who are simply afraid of government and who came blame them? The Federal Government can be scary to all of us! After eight years of George Bush, who turned a federal budget surplus into a deficit through his wars and giving tax breaks to rich Americans, who would not be suspicious of the federal government and its motives? The well-meaning Tea Partiers should consider who their real "enemy" is: the "Military/Industrial Complex" (a term, incidentally, coined by a Republican, not a liberal Democrat) which has received more taxpayer money than every "welfare cheat" combined.

First, a good part of Clinton's budget surplus was funded by borrowing money from the Social Security Trust Fund, which has not been paid back and never will be.

Second, Bush didn't give tax breaks just to the rich. He gave them to every tax payer...unless Cracraft's definition of 'rich' is the same as that of the Democrats in Congress - Anyone with a job.

Third, at least one of those wars was not started by us, not by George Bush. It was started by Osama Bib Laden after his follower committed an act of war against the United States, one that was greater than the attack on Pearl Harbor back on December 7, 1941.

Fourth, the other war was started by Saddam Hussein in 1990. We merely got around to finishing it.

Initially, this anti-government movement included a large number of libertarians. While not always agreeing with them, I have always respected the libertarians more than the Republicans who seek to hijack their movement. The libertarians oppose government intrusion into any aspect of our lives. While they are against taxation and "big government," at least they are consistent. They may oppose taxation but they also are champions of personal liberty and oppose government interference in what one smokes or who one sleeps with.

I have to agree that the GOP has been trying to hijack the TEA party, trying to 'bring it into the fold', as it were. But we're too pissed off at the GOP, and particularly those within the party that we call RINOS, - Republicans In Name Only. The GOP betrayed its libertarian roots and became a somewhat less liberal version of the Democrat Party with the same spendthrift tendencies.

As we have seen, the RINOS had no problem spending money the American people didn't have. But that's no excuse for the Democrats to double down and create a deficit in one year that was bigger than Bush's deficit over eight years. (And we must remember these two things: the Democrats controlled Congress during the last two years of the Bush Administration - a time during which the two biggest budget deficits occurred - and that all spending starts in the House of Representatives.)

Mainstream America is sick and tired of being ignored by our employees, who spend without our leave, impose programs upon us we neither want or can afford to pay for, and forget that they work for us, not the other way around.

Unfortunately, the Tea Party Movement seems to have been taken over by extreme GOP conservative hypocrites who are committed to protecting corporate interests. While they whine about government interference in terms of regulating business, they seem to have no problem with regulating a person's personal lifestyle choices. While the Tea Partiers oppose government getting involved in health care, they seem to have no issue with banning same-sex marriage or medical marijuana. I hope the "well-meaning" Tea Partiers eventually realize which side they are really on.

Oh, and the Democrats haven't been doing just that, and rather blatantly while they're at it? They haven't passed legislation that created 'regulations' and 'rules' and laws whose sole aim is to cripple competition and lock out the small guy. They aren't pandering to those same corporate interests?

Cracraft has attributed far too many motivations to the a vast majority of TEA party supporters and activists. Mostly, we want to be left alone by government, want government to get its financial house in order, want the government to start following the Constitution, want the government to stop spending money it doesn't have and won't have in the future. Abortion, gay marriage, and a host of other social issues aren't even a blip on our agenda. The resistance to health care has nothing to do with denying people health care, but does have to do with its unsustainable cost, its intrusive nature, and its destruction of one of the best health care systems in the world all in the name the overused and purposely misdefined term 'fairness'. My question is, fair to who?

'Nuff said.

Whew. Statists (a word coined by Albert Jay Nock and not Mark Levin, as I heard the latter assert one day) are attempting to win over a perpetual majority through the un-American idea that they can receive benefits without paying into the system. Skeptics might justifiably say the big increase first went into effect under Bush II. Fair enough. Another reason why "compassionate conservatism" is kaput.

Source: TaxProf Blog.  HT: Instapundit

Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute has 'em.

My grandfather retired as a superintendent of schools in New Canaan, Conn., when he was only 52 years old. He had served 27 years in that capacity and had spent three years or so teaching. After retirement in Naples, Florida, he was prodded to go back to work in order to qualify for Medicare. So he put his Ph.D. to work, spending five years as a part-time consultant to the big high-rise towers and their outdoor gardens. (He had been a former biology teacher.)

In that time he maxed out his earnings for Medicare so he and his beloved wife could receive the maximum benefit. Not bad.

Then the school gave him cost of living adjustments too. Not bad.

He died several years ago at nearly 92.

Shortly before this occurred, I stated to him that I thought Social Security was unsustainable. He would have none of it--it certainly had been good to him, giving him benefits over a longer period than his working career. That's not going to happen to me.

How can a highly intelligent person as he was be so misguided by thinking such a system could prevail indefinitely?

That's what Jay Ambrose talking about. It's a Ponzi scheme. Period. It worked great early on, but now it's rapidly tilting in the other direction.

I have to admit to feeling frustration with the "tax-'em-'til-they-bleed/leave" bunch. It has become quite apparent they lack two things: an understanding of economics and history.

It is this lack that drives the Obama Administration and a good portion of Congress. With history making budget deficits and plans to raise taxes to economy draining levels, it's quite clear they have unrealistic expectations of the revenues they'll collect, which in turn will drive them to raise taxes even higher, causing a further drop in revenues.

Whether it is a revolt of the kulaks, or mere tax avoidance, there is economic distortion from high rates of taxation.

The British are seeing this effect in their current budget, as wealthy Brits engage in tax avoidance (structuring their financial lives so as to legally avoid taxes) in anticipation of a rise from a 40% to a 50% rate.

Obviously the Brits are on a path to return to the bad old days of their 1970's economic malaise, when confiscatory tax rates drove the wealthy (and their wealth) out of the UK. The result was a moribund economy, high unemployment, falling tax revenues, and the failure of a number of long-standing British corporate icons (British Leyland, MG, and British Steel, just to name a few).

Two things to remember when it comes to taxes and government (from the comments):

The raising of T(axes) has the effect of decreasing I(nvestment) which in turn has the effect of decreasing Employment (N).

The larger the share of G(overnment) as a part of GDP, the worse off..the economy in the long run.

Turning this into an equation, we get the following: T=1/Ix → G=1/GPDy
(x and y are multipliers used to generate the correct ratio between the left and right side of the equation.)

But as we've already seen, those pushing for the ever higher taxes don't really understand math.

I have to say the opening statements of the President's State of the Union address were on target, talking about the problems that we, as a nation and as individuals, are facing. But once he started addressing the main issue we face - the economy - he lost me.

He talked about tax cuts, but only the temporary tax cuts. The somewhat more long term cuts, the Bush tax cuts, expire next year, meaning everyone will see a tax increase once they're gone.

On the stimulus bill - blah blah blah blah blah blah. (At least that's what I heard.)

As much as I agree that jobs are an issue, I have to disagree with the president that somehow it's up to the government to stimulate them with our money. Better that government get the heck out of the way. We don't need it to take $30 billion of the repaid TARP funds and spend it again.

I agree with Obama that we need to upgrade our infrastructure to help American businesses compete in the global marketplace. But what do high-speed trains have to do with that? Better that electrical systems and broadband communications networks be built, which will do far more to support American businesses than trains.

And while the president says he "won't accept second place for America", he's been doing what he can to make sure that's where we'll end up, if not third or fourth place.

After that I started nodding off as he started mouthing the same old platitudes but in different wrappers. (Make energy less expensive by taxing the hell out of it. Punish all the banks for the actions of a few. Spend billions more on education even though study after study after study shows more money doesn't equate to better education. Destroy our health care system in order to save it. And so on and so on.)

I. GOT. BORED.

ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz........

UPDATE 1/28/10: Going back and watching the address again, I saw that as time passed he shifted more and more blame for all our troubles on to others. He laid all the blame for the failure of health care reform and cap-and-tax squarely on the Republicans, saying they now owned the blame. Senator John Kyl rebutted that allegation today on NPR, stating the Senate Republicans were following the will of their constituents, blocking bad legislation that would do little more than cost the American people untold hundreds of billions of dollars with nothing to show for it.

I. Neal Boortz has the transcript of an interesting hotel conversation. I had to read it a couple of times, but I was laughing as I did so. He's such a bad boy, the Naples golfer!

II. The poem today on the Writer's Almanac (shouldn't it be a plural possessive?) is remarkable. You may want to check it out. I said, "Wow. Wow." Best poem I've heard on that show since Billy Collins's poem about disrobing and making love to Emily Dickinson.

III. I love this guy; another Martin Gross podcast of a man who is truly the second most important American living--after the smartest man in America, Thomas Sowell. His podcasts are a treat: he pulls no punches.

Here Dennis Prager, a wonderful talk show host and Jewish theologian, gently reprimands Gross for his stridency, reducing the rhetorical effectiveness. It's funny because Prager then goes on to agree with every single premise Gross gives.

We truly have two political parties today, the destructive Demoncrats and the stupid Republicans. One thing Gross said that's very interesting is the buy-off of Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, where that particular state is given an exemption of Medicare costs for Nelson's reluctant support of the health care bill is a clear violation of the Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments, says Gross. He says Republicans should call for an emergency meeting with the US Supreme Court to have them rule, as could be done..

That's where the easy work, large pensions, and low stress is. John Derbyshire is right. The government people have won.
The Derb writes:

Let's face it, in the great 20th-century struggle between the State and the individual, the State has won, game, set and match. By the time my kids hit the workforce, the "A" in "USA" will stand not for "America" but for "AFSCME."

Looks as though many are heeding this advice. How people in gubmit think of those in the private sector: You're saps! You exist to feed us! HT: Instapundit