Today in “taxes are for the little people” news

Sometimes you’re just better off taking the bus:

I like to imagine that this revelation came to her in the course of her day, as a vague, nagging worry that there was something she was supposed to do. “Did I … leave the stove on? No, no. I remember turning it off. Did I … maybe forget my keys? Nope, got ‘em right here. What was it? It was something to do with … the air. Replace the air filters, maybe? Noooo… WAIT. THE PLANE.”

Look on the bright side, though. Now she’s qualified to be Treasury Secretary.

McCaskill has been answering questions about the plane since POLITICO recently reported that she billed taxpayers for a political trip around Missouri. POLITICO also reported that McCaskill spent $76,000 from her Senate budget on trips on the aircraft over the past four years, prompting the senator to refund the Treasury Department more than $88,000 for the cost of the trips plus pilot fees.

McCaskill’s announcement Monday is the latest twist in a political scandal that has dogged her for the past two weeks. The expensive fiasco clashes with her self-made image as a reformer and good-government advocate during her first term in the Senate. McCaskill has now shelled out more than $375,000 in payments to cover the cost the plane flights and back taxes, a series of events the senator herself has called “embarrassing.”

On top of this, McCaskill signed on in February as a co-sponsor of Senate legislation that would fire federal employees if they are “seriously delinquent” in paying their own federal taxes…

“There are people I could blame for this, but I know better. As an auditor, I know I should have checked for myself. I take full responsibility for the mistake,” added McCaskill, Missouri’s former state auditor from 1999 to 2007. “I should have checked the documentation. I should have been asking the questions. I shouldn’t have assumed that somebody was doing it.”

Gee, how much were those taxes that McCaskill “mistakenly” “overlooked”? A mere $287,000. Chump change. Insert John Kerry joke here.

Obama misses the mark

Writing in the New York Times President Obama makes a case for the country’s need to increase its exports:

AS the United States recovers from this recession, the biggest mistake we could make would be to rebuild our economy on the same pile of debt or the paper profits of financial speculation. We need to rebuild on a new, stronger foundation for economic growth. And part of that foundation involves doing what Americans have always done best: discovering, creating and building products that are sold all over the world.

We want to be known not just for what we consume, but for what we produce. And the more we export abroad, the more jobs we create in America. In fact, every $1 billion we export supports more than 5,000 jobs at home.

As tempting as it may be to snark about the president’s “pile of debt” comment, I will set that aside. I am struck by the president’s ability to write 763 words without mention two of the biggest impediments that US manufacturer’s face-taxation and regulation. The United States has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. According to a 2010 World Bank study our effective rate is 27.9 percent while the average among the world’s developed nations is 16.8 percent. This country walks in to the global market place at a severe disadvantage. The disadvantage is compounded by the fact that our government has become downright slap happy when it comes to piling on regulations.

Yes, we need to become more competitive on a global level but Obama will not bring that about by running around glad-handing foreign dignitaries. Job One if he is really serious about putting Americans back to work is to get government out of the way.

Contrary to the liberal talking points, manufacturers do not move overseas because of cheap labor. They move because of our punitive taxes and innovation stifling regulations. Give businesses the tools they need to prosper and they will do so. Continue to hamper a manufacturer’s ability to put out a product at reasonable price and realize a profit and as sure as LeBron James moved his “franchise” from tax heavy Ohio to income tax free Florida, our manufacturers will continue to flee to more accommodating locations.

Rather than running around Asia, Obama should meet with Timothy Geithner and the heads of the various regulatory commissions. Unfortunately that is not how Democrats “do” business.

Do what I say, not what I do

Then Sen. Joe Biden:

Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), for instance, seems concerned about adequate patriotism on the part of people in households making over $250,000. They need to pay more taxes, he said this week: "It's time to be patriotic...time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."

Biden failed to mention that his words only applied to the poor schleps in the private sector:

White House aides owe IRS over $800,000

So what exactly did “draining the swamp” mean, anyway? Apparently, it meant taking power and promoting such examples of ethics as Timothy Geithner to high office. The Washington Post notes that the IRS has a locus of tax evaders to pursue, and not coincidentally that locus happens to be in their neighborhood:

Capitol Hill employees owed $9.3 million in overdue taxes at the end of last year, a sliver of the $1 billion owed by federal workers nationwide but one with potential political ramifications for members of Congress.

The debt among Hill employees has risen at a faster rate than the overall tax debt on the government’s books, according to Internal Revenue Service data. It comes at a time when some Republican members are pushing for the firings of government workers who owe the IRS and President Obama has urged a crackdown on delinquent government contractors.

The IRS information does not identify delinquent taxpayers by name, party affiliation or job title and does not indicate whether members of Congress are among the scofflaws. It shows that 638 employees, or about 4 percent, of the 18,000 Hill workers owe money.

The average unpaid tax bill is $12,787 among the Senate’s delinquent taxpayers and $15,498 among those working in the House.

Well, isn't that special?

Does Keeping the Money You Have Earned Make You a "Sinner"?

40 billionaires pledge to give away half of wealth

Good for them!  I think that Bill Gates, Wareen Buffett and others are doing a wonderful thing.  But please note that they are voluntarily giving half their fortune away, not having their wealth forcibly taken from them.  Further, none of these forty will end up living on on the street due to their genorousity.  It doesn't diminish their gift in anyway but their lives will not be changed one bit by giving away half of their money.  So it is all good, right?  No.  Here is the "bugged me" line:

"We contacted between 70 and 80 people to get the 40. A few were unavailable. We don’t give up on them. Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future. We’ll keep on working," Buffett said.

Is it a sin to keep what you have earned?  I don't believe so.  The people who have not signed the pledge have every right to refuse.  Maybe they are keeping their money because they would prefer to give it away privately and without fanfare.  Maybe they are flat out cheap.  So what?

None of this would matter except that the same people who are so generous with their own money are also so generous with mine.  And that is a sin.

Million$ of Reason$ Why $igning With Miami I$ $mart

I'm a huge basketball fan, in March, and only if my University of Kentucky Wildcats are Sweet Sixteen bound.  In other words, I have no skin in the whole LeBron James hoopla.  That said, James made one very smart move. 

James hasn't signed a contract yet but I've heard he is looking at one hundred million dollars boosted to upwards of one billion dollars when endorsements are factored in.  Based on the billion dollar figure, what would it cost James to play in the other cities that were wooing him?

Cleveland would cost him $62,400,000; Chicago, $30,000,000; New Jersy, $107,500,000; New York, $89,700,000.  That as they say, is a whole lot of scratch.  Unlike the other venues vying for James, Florida has no state income taxes.  Whatever James ultimately earns, he will keep more of the money he earns in his pocket to use however he sees fit. 

I have no idea what James will spend all that money on but if he chooses, he will have $62,400,000 more to give to the Boys and Girls Club that he supports by moving to Miami versus staying in Cleveland.  Instead of being mad at James for leaving, Cleveland fans should be mad at a state government that thinks the state should decide how the citizens of Ohio spend 6.24 percent of the income that the citizens earn. 

Left Coast Rebel has related thoughts as does Memeorandum.

Well, That Didn't Long Did It?

We've been told that it will take four years for the "upside" of ObamaCare to kick in-rationing, death panels, reduced standard of care, but the "downside" is already here:

It's been a banner week for Democrats: ObamaCare passed Congress in its final form on Thursday night, and the returns are already rolling in. Yesterday AT&T announced that it will be forced to make a $1 billion writedown due solely to the health bill, in what has become a wave of such corporate losses.

This wholesale destruction of wealth and capital came with more than ample warning. Turning over every couch cushion to make their new entitlement look affordable under Beltway accounting rules, Democrats decided to raise taxes on companies that do the public service of offering prescription drug benefits to their retirees instead of dumping them into Medicare. We and others warned this would lead to AT&T-like results, but like so many other ObamaCare objections Democrats waved them off as self-serving or "political."

AT&T is joining Caterpillar, John Deere, Verizon and Valero Energy, all who have announced in the last couple of days that ObamaCare is going to cost them millions of dollars and cause them to layoff workers, reduce benefits and raise prices.  And we're not even one week in to this idiocy.

As the Wall Street Journal notes, Democrats are shocked that there are negative consequences to ObamaCare.  Instead of the rainbows and unicorns that Dems were sure would magically appear to herald the advent a new era of domestic bliss in the country they've been greeted by the grim reality that their "historic" legislation will further tank an already muffed up economy. 

Consequences are a bitch but necessary to the learning process.  Granted, Dems are slow learners but I have to believe that the reality of the current situation will eventually sink in.  I predict the Dems will see the light sometime around the first Tuesday this November.

An Nation of Tim Geithners? No Thanks!

From Don Surber:

If anyone wants to know why the federal government will outspend by nearly $2 trillion what it receives from taxpayers, Americans might want to look at the tax code, which allows more than 50 million workers — in good times — to get away with paying nothing to the federal government — in fact, in many cases, the government pays a negative income tax to them.

More than one third of the people with incomes in 2008 paid no federal income taxes, the Tax Foundation reported.

The actual number was 51.6 million — or 36.3%.

The taxes from these 51.6 million were less than zero — thanks to our politicized tax code — and they paid a total of negative $50.5 billion.

What it comes down to it that we have millions of citizens who enjoy all the benefits of citizenship without any the financial stake that comes with benefit.  The government uses the tax code not just to raise revenue to fund national defense or infrastructure but also to reward or punish behavior.  This often results in productive citizens footing the bill for non-productive citizens. 

I'm not a big fan of paying taxes but I accept that taxes are necessary.  But as someone who works in a credit union and sees some whopper tax refunds I can't help but resent it when I see refunds in the thousands of dollars go to people who pay nothing in to the system.

Surber loses me at the end of his post:

How much did you make? Pay the greater of $1,000 or 10% of your first $100,000 and 40% of anything over that.

Charging 40% for anything over $100,000 punishes productivity.  Taxes shouldn't have anything to do with earnings.  To be truly fair, taxes should be based on consumption not earnings.  Let's do away with income tax and have a national sales tax instead.  Everyone consumes, therefore, everyone would pay.

The House to taxpayers: The law is for thee, not for me

Tax season is upon us.  Well, some of us anyway.  Here's a little news out the House via Don Surber to give you a warm and fuzzy feeling as you write that check to the US Treasury:

From Politico: “Legislation that would force government and Hill staffers to pay back taxes or lose their jobs was pulled from House committee markup today after Democrats hit the brakes. Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee that oversees government workers, told POLITICO he was concerned that the legislation would kick workers to the curb before it could be determined if the IRS had erred.”

For those of you not blessed to have a cushy, over-paid job doing government work, well, pay up sucka.  Catching breaks isn't for schmucks in the private sector.

Charlie Crist may be the "absolute worst" govenor in the United States. Ya, think?

Writing in The Agenda at The National Review Reihan Salam has this to say about my governor, Charlie Crist:

Why would Democrats want Charlie Crist to switch parties? I understand that this would help reinforce the view that there is no home for moderates in the Republican Party, thus strengthening a key Democratic narrative. The problem is that Crist really is one of the worst governors in the United States, if not the absolute worst. This has nothing to do with ideology per se. Crist has backed conservative policies as well as liberal policies. He's even gotten some things right. For example, I think Crist was very wise to support reforming the criminal justice system and I also think that there's a decent case for restoring voting rights to ex-offenders. But on the central issues facing a governor or for that matter a U.S. senator — issues surrounding taxing and spending — Crist is clueless.

…Or, for that matter, Florida, where Crist's approach threatens the state's long-term fiscal health. Rather than see federal stimulus funds as a one-time injection that could spare the state pro-cyclical cuts while creating room for a long-term plan to reduce the size of state government in line with revenues, he seemed to think that it gave him an opportunity to permanently ratchet up spending while also cutting taxes. No wonder he embraced the president.

Those of us who are opposed to Crist becoming our Republican candidate for the US Senate have stated repeatedly that it was the way that Crist used the Stimulus money that was so upsetting to us. Crist should have swallowed hard and admitted that as a state we are in deep trouble and that cuts, big cuts, were necessary to put us on solid footing. However, he lacked the political courage to do that.
 
Let's look at a couple of facts.  Florida has no state income tax.  That is a wonderful thing except Florida currently has the second highest foreclosure rate in the nation.  Property values here have dropped like a rock.  Between the foreclosures and the decreased property values the state's revenue from property taxes has taken a major hit.  The state's unemployment rate is currently 11.8% and expected to rise.  Adding to the unemployment crisis is from Famuan Online:
 

The state's unemployment rate currently rests at 11.8 percent. Businesses, some of them facing 1,000 percent increases in unemployment taxes, are threatening layoffs.

Crist and legislative leaders want to delay the pain, but experts say that increases are unavoidable. Their plan would raise the per-employee tax to $25.20 this year and $53.90 the next. But it would soar to $192.95 in 2012.

With businesses already squeezed the increase in taxes will at a minimum delay companies from hiring any additional workers and in all likelihood will cause increased layoffs.  Increased layoffs will lead to more foreclosures and the cycle continues.

Now we are stuck.  Crist has already raised a whole slew of fees.  The only thing left to do is cut the budget to the absolute bare bones.  Unfortunately, Crist has shown no will to do so.  Just the opposite, Crist is asking that we increase our sales taxes to fund a train.  The insanity of it all is just mind boggling.

No one is under the delusion that budget cuts will be easy but unless we want a California size catastrophe we have no choice. 

Crist needs to set aside his political interests and start looking after the interests of the citizens of Florida.

Is "agnostic" another way of saying, "I don't give a damn one way or the other"?

AGNOSTIC

2. somebody denying something is knowable: somebody who doubts that a question has one correct answer or that something can be completely understood

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Sounds kinda wishy-washy to me.  Doesn't sound like this does it?
 


Suddenly, after crowing on end about he would not increase taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year, Obama has decide that he is "agnostic" about raising taxes on the middle class.  The thing is, Obama isn't the least bit agnostic about his socialist policies.  He knows what he wants and now he needs to find some way to pay for everything.  He has already lost the middle class so what the Hell.  He has no reason to pretend anymore. 

Yeah, he signed the "pay-go" thing but not until after he raised the debt ceiling another 1.9 trillion dollars.  There seems, as usual, to be a disconnect between Obama's words and deeds. 

Truth is, Obama is running out of people he can snow.  The "centrist" thing isn't going to work for Obama because he can't sell something that nobody will buy.  In the mean time, the natives on the Left are getting restless.  This was supposed to be their golden moment but instead everything around them is turning to rust. 

Things are going to get interesting over the next few months.  Obama can't do squat without the Dems in Congress and so far he hasn't been able to do anything with the Dems in Congress. Every day we inch closer to Election Day 2010.  Desperation is in the air.  Do Dems appease the Left and lose in November.  Do they assume they've already lost and go for broke?  Do some Dems realize that their differences with the Right are far less than their differences with a far Left radical president on his cronies? 

Who knows?

Taking the bullet train to Hell

As I posted the other day, the Big Guy is coming to town and everyone wants to know why.  Well, I like rumors, innuendo and speculation as much as the next gal so I here's my two cents:  light rail.  I'm basing this on:  a)  Governor Charlie Crist has been pushing for light rail forever; b) Crist is in deep doo with the voters because he embraced the Stimulus Bill and has squat to show for it;  c)  there is 2.5 billion in stimulus money on the line; d) Fox News opined earlier today that Obama is coming to Tampa to announce that we are receiving the stimulus money to build light rail between Tampa and Orlando.   If this turns out to be the case, taxpayers across the land will be ponying up to pay for a truly terrible idea.  John Stossel:

Politicians love spending your money on rail. They claim it cleans the air and reduces traffic jams. Joe Biden said last year: "if you're going to create jobs with a long-lasting platform for the future, it's rail, rail, rail, and rail."

But it turns out that, in most places, rail is terribly inefficient.

Amtrak loses $32 for every ticket it sells. So few people ride the line from New Orleans to Los Angeles that it manages to lose $462 per passenger.

The average subsidy per ride on all LA rails is $10.53, according to data from transportation consultant Tom Rubin. For someone who uses the rail to go back and forth to work every day, that adds up to a subsidy of $5,369 per year -- enough to lease that person a Toyota Prius for the year.

Biden claims that rail will "protect the environment." But actually, says Randall O'Toole of the CATO Institute, who will be a guest on my show (Stossel, 8pm EST) light rail uses more energy per passenger mile than the average car – twice as much as a Toyota Prius.

Even some of the nation's most lauded rail systems have been a disappointment.

Rail is a proven loser.  If the ticket from Tampa to Orlando is priced high enough to cover the costs nobody will be able to afford a ticket.  If, to entice people to purchase tickets the price is subsidized, the taxpayers are on the hook forever.  Further, if Florida believes that light rail is such a great deal then Florida should find a way to pay for it with burdening the taxpayers in the other forty-nine states.

Long after any temporary jobs created by the building of a light rail system are gone and the politicians who pushed for it are gone, the taxpayers will still be footing the bill.

Don't tax me bro!

Unions Rally to Oppose a Tax on Health Insurance

When millions of blue-collar workers were leaning toward John McCain during the 2008 campaign, labor unions moved many of them into Barack Obama’s column by repeatedly hammering one theme: Mr. McCain wanted to tax their health benefits.

An A.F.L.-C.I.O. ad warned union members that it believed voting for Senator John McCain in 2008 would be a mistake.

But now labor leaders are fuming that President Obama has endorsed a tax on high-priced, employer-sponsored health insurance policies as a way to help cover the cost of health care reform. And as Senate and House leaders seek to negotiate a final health care bill, unions are pushing mightily to have that tax dropped from the legislation. Or at the very least, they want the price threshold raised so that the tax would affect fewer workers.

In other words, the union leaders are all for shifting the cost off health care to tax payers, just not their tax payers.  Well common sense alone is enough to know that we cannot extend health care to 20, 30, 40 (whatever number we are currently up or down to) million people and that only the "rich" will bear the burden of paying for it.  There simply aren't that many rich people around. 

Unions are among the biggest pushers of ObamaCare.  If they want it they should be willing to pay for it.

What is the difference between a "tax accident" and a "tax cheat"?

Last year I received a letter from the IRS.  In June of 2007, I broke my leg.  It was your run of the mill break and I spent five months in a wheelchair.  I wasn't able to live in my own home and my expenses shot up overnight.  I had a small stock fund that I cashed in to help shore up my finances.  According to the IRS, I underpaid my taxes on that fund by $213 and with interest and penalties I owed $269.  I mailed them a check.  But I steamed about it.  Am I a tax cheat?  Is Glenn Beck?  Politico:

What if it's Beck with a tax 'accident'?

No one has been less forgiving than Glenn Beck when it comes to Democrats with tax problems. Not just the well-known ones like Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner but also less serious ones such as Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, whose husband only recently paid off $6,400 in tax liens on his auto repair business, and Nancy Killefer, who withdrew her nomination to be White House chief performance officer, citing a $946.69 tax lien on her Washington home.

Their tax issues are just one indicator of “a culture of corruption among some of the left,” Beck declared just last month in a segment on his hugely popular Fox News television show, in which he branded Geithner, Killefer, Solis and a handful of other Obama nominees “tax cheats,” whom he wouldn’t trust “with my children, let alone my children's future.”

Mocking the excuses offered by the nominees, Beck sarcastically intoned: “Oh, the tax thing, it was an accident. It was my husband's fault. I didn't do it, he did it. I didn't mean to do it. I was just working hard for the people.”

So what to make, then, of the fact that Beck has had his own minor tax problems over the past few years?

Well, here's what I make of it.  If you scroll to the second page of the Politico article you'll find that upon being notified by the IRS that monies were owed, Beck, or more accurately, Beck's company paid the taxes.  The shortages were due to the differences between tax codes in different states and Beck's company had moved to a different state mid tax year.  I understand that a mistake could happen and I appreciate that once the mistake was discovered it was immediately rectified.

Geither, Daschle and company didn't make a mistake.  They cheated and they didn't pay up until it affected their political careers.  It is a cheap shot for Politico to lump Beck, and myself, in the same category as people who take citizen's money to pay for their socialist programs but fail to put out their own money until it is convenient.  They didn't have accidents, they cheated and they are hypocrites to boot.

In fairness to Politico, it is pointed out in the article that our tax code is far too complicated.  Maybe Timothy Geithner will fix that.  Yeah, right.

2009 Tax Stinkers

Howard Gleckman has posted on The Ten Worst Tax Ideas of 2009. The TaxProf lists his favorites, here are mine:

8. Obama’s Middle-Class. This is a rerun from last year, but it is too good to leave out. The President thinks we will somehow reduce the deficit and fix the tax code without raising taxes by a dime for those poor souls making a quarter million dollars-a-year or less. Unfortunately, that's 95 percent of us. Can’t wait to see how he does it.

4. California. It claims to be the fifth largest economy in the world but can’t pass a serious budget, and can’t govern itself. It is the poster child for dysfunctional state governments and fiscal crises everywhere

3. The homebuyer credit. Congress started the year by giving away $8,000 in subsidies to "first-time" homebuyers, as many as 74,000 of whom, it turned out, never quite got around to buying a house. Then, it extended the boondoggle to current owners who buy up. Bottom line: People who were already going to buy will get billions of dollars in government subsides. But you gotta make those real estate agents happy

The problem with the Obama’s pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class is that it just doesn’t pass the smell test. You can’t go off the social agenda deep end without raises taxes to break the fall. Then there is the fact that if that stinker Cap & Trade passes it is the middle class who will be overwhelmingly impacted. Don’t even get me started on the VAT and the middle class. No offense but when I buy something I find out what it costs right up front. When my government is trying to sell me something, I want the cost right up front. Which brings us to…

California is living proof that the path to Hell is paved with good intentions. In the Land of Perpetual Good Deeds every good deed is now being punished. The citizens of the state tried to turn their state in to a social utopia and what they ended up with is a fiscal cesspool. You really can tax, spend and regulate yourself out of business and now that California has reached the end of the road they still aren’t willing to take the necessary actions that will allow the state to (slowly) rebuild. They deserve their lot.

The Homebuyer’s Credit speaks for itself. It was just another government program that “enticed” people to buy something that they were already planning to buy. Oh, and like every other government program it is rife with fraud. Double whammy.

Actually, taxes are an easy target for ridicule. Problem is, when you spend, you tax, so we’re far more likely to see more stinkers in the years to come.

h/t Ed Driscoll

What Happens When the Bill Comes Due?

Via Memeorandum:

After twenty-five years working in the banking industry I've seen it thousands of times-that moment when the bills are due and there isn't enough money to pay them. The vast majority of people are not deadbeats and the vast majority of people will pay their bills no matter what it takes. In the real world, when the bills come due people will adjust their lifestyle in order to meet their obligations.

The real world does not exist within the halls of Congress. That's because they are playing the game with other people's money. When the bills come due in Washington they simply spend more of your money. Unfortunately, you and I aren't giving the kids in Washington enough money to keep them in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed to so it is time to pony up.

According to the New York Times, the VAT is back on the table:

The favored route of economists is known as a value-added tax, which is a tax on goods and services that is collected at every step along the production chain, from raw material to a consumer’s shopping bag. Similar to a sales tax, it generally results in consumers paying more for the things they buy. The revenues could be used to pay for health care or other social programs, or just to pay down existing debt.

Like universal health care, every other industrialized country in the world already has a value-added tax (as do about 100 emerging countries). And also like universal health care, this once-taboo policy option has recently been invoked, at times begrudgingly, by many prominent Washingtonians, including the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi; John Podesta, who was co-chairman of President Obama’s transition team; and two former Federal Reserve chairmen, Alan Greenspan and Paul A. Volcker

...a tax on goods and services that is collected at every step along the production chain, from raw material to a consumer’s shopping bag. In simply terms, the price of everything you buy for your family goes up and up and up until finally, it reaches you, and you then pony up your "fair share" for spineless politicians who don't have the balls to play by the same rules imposed on the rest of us. So much for Obama's promise not to raise taxes on the middle class.

Our politicians don't think that we will stand for having services scaled back in order to pay down the deficit. But in our personal lives, we cut back on things that we consider 'essential' all the time. We brown bag it to lunch, eat dinner at home, drive our car until the wheels fall off.
And maybe Washington should clean up its own house before it asks us for more:

The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available. (emphasis added)

When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000. (emphasis added)

I don't think that it is unreasonable to tell our representatives that they can forget about getting one more penny from us until they start spending the money we've already given them more responsibly.

So How's That Stimulus Working Out For You?

Sometimes I wonder if the current Administration understands that it doesn't have a pot to piss in. The government has no money. Never has, never will. The money that the government spends has been confiscated from its citizens in the form of taxes.

I use the word "confiscate" because the government has a fiduciary obligation under our Constitution that limits how our money is to be spent and that obligation is not being fulfilled. Whether it is $9,500,000.00 spent on "streetscaping" in Coral Gables, Florida or $3,400,000.00 for a turtle tunnel (seriously) outside of Tallahassee, our money is being spent on frivolous projects that have limited, if any, benefit for the taxpayer.

Doug Ross lists the top ten stimulus fables. The Stimulus has been a bust. The only job growth has been in non-existent districts and (surprise!) the public sector. So what is our government going to do next? Cut taxes? Not in this life time. Cutting taxes has been proven to stimulate the economy but does nothing to grow government and growing government and turning citizens in to dependents is what this administration is all about.

My guess is that Obama is going to continue to throw good money after bad. Can we afford three more years of stimulus?

If the President Lies, but the Lie is 'Blacked Out', Does it Stop Being a Lie?

I don't think so but you be the judge.



From Doug Ross:

What did the Treasury Department black out?

Americans for Tax Reform reports upon one of the most egregious of
President Obama's campaign lies: transparency.

ATR obtained internal documents that show President Obama knows that the tax
hikes will hit all American households, breaking his oft-repeated campaign
promise to hold the line on taxes. On a September 12, 2008 campaign stop in
Dover, New Hampshire, then-candidate Obama stated unequivocally, "I can make a
firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see
any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your
capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

The Treasury Department states that the total amount of new taxes will range
from $100 billion to $200 billion, or approximately $1,800 a year.

Of course if the Treasury Department says $1,800 a year it is a pretty sure bet that it will be at least double that. But for the sake of argument let's go with their current figure. With the economy in the tank, how many families have an extra $150 laying around to cover the increased energy costs. And remember, we're only taking about direct costs. In a previous post I wrote:

Of course, everyone who pays taxes will also see increases due to indirect energy costs. After all, who pays the electric bill at the school down the road? The taxpayer. The same applies to every public and municipal building. What other indirect energy costs are there? Who pays the electric bill at the grocery store? Is it paid out of the store’s profits or are operational costs built into the price of goods that consumer’s purchase? The Treasury’s estimate is beginning to sound a little low isn’t it?

If the President believes that his agenda is best for America, let him argue it honestly, including what the agenda will cost American families. So far he hasn't seemed inclined toward honesty.

Treasury Dept. Admits That Cap and Trade is Going to Cost Families Big Bucks

Via Memeorandum:

The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

Not exactly breaking news; I said the same thing back in June. The US Treasury is putting the cost per family at around $147.00 a month in direct energy costs. Of course, everyone who pays taxes will also see increases due to indirect energy costs. After all, who pays the electric bill at the school down the road? The taxpayer. The same applies to every public and municipal building. What other indirect energy costs are there? Who pays the electric bill at the grocery store? Is it paid out of the store’s profits or are operational costs built into the price of goods that consumer’s purchase? The Treasury’s estimate is beginning to sound a little low isn’t it?

Consumer’s will pay for Cap and Trade (and a host of other progressive programs) in increased costs not in increased federal income taxes. It is a twofer for the President; he gets taxpayers to pay for his agenda while claiming that he hasn’t raised taxes.

Beware the hidden cost of seemingly “free”, feel good programs.

Babalu Blog Has Issued A Wallet Alert!

Congress to America: Shut up and hand over your cash.

In case you missed it because it was released late Friday, House Democrats announced that they will seek a massive $540 billion tax increase to help pay for Obama's healthcare plan.

Honestly, I did miss it. But I can't say I am surprised. For weeks the Congress has been trying to play off the idea that they could come up with a TRILLION DOLLARS out of thin air. The only way that Obama can keep his promise that ObamaCare will be deficit neutral is to hit us, and hit us hard, in the pocket. Even then, I don't think the promise was made to be kept.

Good time to remember Margaret Thatcher's famous words:

"The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

Damn shame that wisdom is not the Left's forte.

Now That Dissent Is No Longer Patriotic...Update

what is?

Perhaps paying taxes is patriotic. No, that can't be, see: Obama-entire Cabinet. So how is patriotism defined these days?

Is it simply taking a pledge to be a better person? If patriotism is defined as the love for one's country it would be constant, and not dependent on the occupant of the Oval Office.

Patriotism "is something that almost everyone thinks is good," says Nolan McCarty, professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton. "So if you can attach your idea to something that is good — Mom, apple pie, patriotism — that's a particularly effective way of selling the idea.

Well there we have it. The Left has discovered patriotism and made it their own. They won and the definition belongs to them. They have defined health care as a human right and with it, support of health care as an act of patriotism.

It is what it is. For the remainder of Obama's term, those of us who believe in small government, free speech, self-determination should accept that we have inherited the titles and symbols the Left once gave to Pres. Bush. We will be associated with swastikas and we will be called stupid . This should not bother us and it should not deter us. The Left is only renting patriotism and the current situation is temporary.

Granted, there is a lot of harm that the Left can do before their lease is up. We must stand up to them and do everything in our power to ensure that we still have a country left when they've vacated. But we shouldn't expect them to pat us on the back, or their minions in the media to congratulate us, for pointing out that they are trashing a country that true patriots shed their blood to build and protect.

My advice to people on the Right, stay vigilant but find the humor in the Left and learn to laugh. Only forty-two months to go.

Update-Mark Steyn writing along these same lines:

Reporting dissent is the highest form of patriotism! Is your neighbor suspiciously "well-dressed"? Is he mouthing off about cancer survival rates under socialized medical systems while wearing a cravat? Give us his name, and we'll give you his spats! Just go to flag@whitehouse.gov, not to be confused with flagging@whitehouse.gov., which is the e-mail address for reporting President Obama's latest approval rating. Go to flay@whitehouse.gov if you'd like Speaker Pelosi to walk across your back as a whip-wielding SS dominatrix barking "Vee hoff vays of making you tokk less casually, dumbkopf!" Go to flange@whitehouse.gov if you need parts for your new government car, or your new government hip replacement. Go to flaunt@whitehouse.gov if you'd like a special preview of President Obama's latest bare-chested pictorial for Vanity Fair. Go to flatulent@whitehouse.gov if you'd like to report your neighbor's cow for excessive CO2 emissions.

Well I certainly didn't need the Pelosi image and I am over the Obama pictorials. Steyn makes the point that Conformity is now the new dissent. So, under Obama, there is not dissent, only compliance.