Democrat Party: For and By the Rich

This is the sort of issue we have to put front and center in the American mind – from Reuters:

In the town that launched the War on Poverty 48 years ago, the poor are getting poorer despite the government’s help. And the rich are getting richer because of it.

The top 5 percent of households in Washington, D.C., made more than $500,000 on average last year, while the bottom 20 percent earned less than $9,500 – a ratio of 54 to 1.

That gap is up from 39 to 1 two decades ago. It’s wider than in any of the 50 states and all but two major cities. This at a time when income inequality in the United States as a whole has risen to levels last seen in the years before the Great Depression…

Our liberals are in the process of creating the “two Americas” that they’ve been whining about…an America of a small class of rich (all of whom will be in or highly connected to government) while most of the population wallows in poverty with their lives eked out between small time jobs and government hand outs.  Did the liberals intend this?  No, but it is clear from their actions that they prefer it to a system where someone can get ahead without government permission.

Tie this in with Obama’s bogus “tax the rich” rhetoric – which really means “tax the upper middle class” – and we can show, even to low information voters, that it is the government which is keeping them down…and allowing the rich to get richer as long as they donate to the right political party.  This is where we can turn the “class war” against the left…where we can get people to raise their fist against the Department of Education as much as they raise it against Bank of America.

This is what is happening in Detroit, in Los Angeles, in Chicago, in New York City…every place where liberal Democrats are firmly in power they have done all that liberalism promises…and it has invariably led to the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer (with the only poor people getting rich are those who are willing to sell out for a rake off…think Jesse Jackson).  But, remember, the people in these places don’t know their full plight because, for the most part, the MSM doesn’t tell them (that would upset the Democrat Ruling Class, after all).  So, we need to tell them – by campaigning in the deepest blue areas.

We can do this, people – we can crush the left, if we’ll just try.

If You Liberals Really Want a Class War…

…then we on the right are pleased to give you one.  From National Review Online:

…While we would prefer no tax increase at all, eliminating this deduction (for State and local taxes) would be a sensible reform of the tax code, and could be paired with tax cuts elsewhere for a fiscally neutral simplification of our byzantine tax code.

Estimates suggest that eliminating this deduction would raise as much as $900 billion over ten years, though it may well turn out to be less as taxpayers modify their behavior in light of the new incentives. That won’t balance the budget with deficits running that much or more every single year, but it is nothing to turn the national nose up at, either: $900 billion would completely offset the estimated deficit for 2013. Progressives should welcome eliminating the deduction in that the new tax burden would fall much more heavily upon those earning $200,000 or more. As Reihan Salam points out, households in the $200,000-and-up range would pay an average of $5,166 more without the deduction, while those in the $30,000-to-$50,000 range would pay only $70 more…

Wouldn’t cost me a penny more, of course, as I live in a no-income-tax State.  But it would cost people in New York and California a bundle, especially if they are making more than 250 grand a year and are getting hit with those very high California and New York State income taxes.  But, given that those two States voted overwhelmingly for Obama, it stands to reason that they’ll be pleased as punch to fork over a bit more to Uncle Sam.  Unless, that is, they were just stupid and thought that Obama was talking about people like Bill Gates when he said “make millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share”.  We on the right can’t be blamed if people didn’t bother to actually look past Obama’s rhetoric and examine his concrete proposals.

This is not quite up to the standards I want – I still prefer my “wealth tax”, and I’ve actually come around to turning the screws a little harder on it.  While still excluding farms/ranches, mines and factories which are family or individually owned, I’m thinking that a 10% annual tax on all wealth in excess of $2 million should do the trick.  Which trick is that?  The double trick of both making rich liberals pay for their liberalism and showing lower and middle class Americans just who’s side we’re on.  The dirty secret of liberalism is that it is run by rich people and largely for the benefit of rich people – I want to drive that home.  Next step is to eliminate charitable deductions for any organization which does not provide direct housing, clothing, food or medical aid to poor people…no more tax write-offs for donating to liberal political groups which have got themselves a tax exemption.  Oh, and the group dispensing the help to the poor better have administrative expenses down to no more than, say, 30% of expenditures or it gets reclassified as a very heavily taxed racketeer influenced/corrupt organization.

I’m all set for the class war.  Are you?

Sandy: A Big Government Failure

Manhattan is a rather low-lying island barely off the coast of the mainland of the United States.  A great deal of its travel is done by tunnel and subway – which is naturally on a lower level than the island, itself.  You’d think that someone would have looked in to the prospect of a storm surge causing flooding of the tunnels and subways and would have worked out a way to protect from flooding as well as a contingency plan for dealing with flooding.

So, what did I hear Mayor Bloomberg advise today?  That people might want to walk in to New York City because it might be quicker than any other means.

On the other hand, Bloomberg has diligently seen to it that sodas are properly regulated in the city of New York.

This is what Big Government ultimately is – micromanaging things which aren’t a government responsibility, at all, while the things governments are supposed to do wither away.


Government Waste

Let’s keep this in mind the next time you hear the liberal media scream on and on about firing teachers, police, and fire personel every time some conservative wants to reign in government spending. Liberals are very good at messaging, but horrible at governing, and it seems as though every other election cycle, the general electorate forgets that little fact. Sure, you’re going to hear how well things were during the Clinton years, and they are not all wrong, but don’t forget that Clinton had a Republican Senate and House, led by Newt Gingrich who forced Clinton to abandon Hillary Care, balance the budget, and implement welfare reform. To Clinton’s credit, he moved to the center and won reelection, of course Clinton was much more of a savvy politician than is Obama, who is probably one of the most hardened far left ideologues in the Democratic ranks.

We can do so much better folks, and while I do wish Romney had more conservative bona fides, I do think that having a CEO as President at this time may serve us very well. If anyone can navigate the haze and the maze of a bloated, wasteful bureaucracy it is Romney. Then if he chooses Marco Rubio as VP, we will have a full fledged, young staunch conservative to lead us into the future, but it all starts by electing Romney this November. Let’s see that that happens.

His Majesty, Barack I

With the completely unconstitutional imposition of the DREAM Act and, now, the absurd claim of Executive Privilege regarding the “Fast and Furious” scandal, a lot of conservatives and libertarians are furious with President Obama over his assumption of rather autocratic powers.  But I ask everyone to pause for a moment – one has to consider just what sort of government the United States has.  To do this, I think it best to refer to an outside observer of proven sympathy for the United States, Winston Churchill:

…The rigid Constitution of the United States, the gigantic scale and strength of its party machinery, the fixed terms for which public officers and representatives are chosen, invest the President with a greater measure of autocratic power that was possessed before the war by the Head of any great State…

Churchill was referring, in that instance, to Woodrow Wilson.  Keep in mind the time frame Churchill was using – this was the day of Nicholas II of Russia, Wilhelm II of Germany and Franz Josef of Austria.  And yet Churchill was asserting that these three men had, in practice, less autocratic power than was held by Woodrow Wilson.  And, he was right.  Churchill correctly perceived a truth about the the United States which to this day escapes nearly everyone:  the President of the United States, while his term lasts, possesses an immense amount of autocratic power.  Boiled down, in our President we have an elected king – limited in real terms only by three things:

1.  His term of office.

2.  His inability to appropriate funds without Congressional approval.

3.  The risk of impeachment.

Lincoln understood this – stating that he would maintain the contest with the South until he died or his term ended.   When in 1864 Lincoln looked to be the loser of the Presidential election he was yet determined to win victory between election day and the end of his term (which in those days ended in March, not January).  And he could have done it – Congress could have cut off funds for additional military power, but the military power he already had was sufficient and no power in the United States government could have prevented him from ordering Grant to continue, election results be darned.

The real lesson in Obama’s abuse of power is this:  always have a great deal of care whom is elected President.  Because you’ve got him for four years and while you can limit the amount of money he spends, you can’t really limit what he does with the money he is allowed to spend.  Jokingly, someone has written a list of 10 things Romney can do after he takes office in the manner of Obama’s DREAM Act – among them, cease enforcement of various environmental laws and of any tax rate above 18%.  It was put out as a joke, but it is also a reality.  Suppose Romney did tell the IRS not to prosecute anyone who failed to pay more than 18% of their income as taxes – what could anyone do?  Impeach him?  Impeachment has only come up three times in American history: with Andrew Johnson it was a GOP witch hunt against a War Democrat; with Nixon it was a Democrat witch hunt against someone they didn’t like; with Clinton we actually had a genuinely impeachable offense but Democrats ensured that it wouldn’t go anywhere.  Impeach Obama?  It would require the votes of 20 Senate Democrats to do it – short of committing rape or murder live, on television, do you think that there is anything Obama can do which would move 20 Senate Democrats to vote to convict?  Get real!

We elect a king every four years and then allow that king one more shot at an additional four years.  In office, he is mostly limited by his own conscience and sense of right and wrong.  A President who simply does not care about the law (or, as in Obama’s case, understand what a law is) is highly dangerous – as we can see with Obama.  For more than two centuries we have been extraordinarily lucky – even with a cad like Clinton or a twisted man like Nixon, there was still a sense of respect for the Constitution and a desire to live up to great predecessors – looming over all was the figure of Washington, who defined what a President is and offered a model for all who came after if they cared at all about the United States.  Trouble is, if we get someone who doesn’t care about the United States – who, in a real sense, has nothing but contempt for Washington and the edifice he raised – then we’re in a bad way.

Now there are some practical steps we can take – from re-asserting Congressional power to declare war, to putting more strings on what is done with appropriated money, to insisting that no US ground troops are deployed outside the United States except during time of declared war.  These and other measures can hem in a President a bit and ensure that he seeks Congressional cooperation before doing something.  But, fundamentally, unless we want to re-write our Constitution in to a parliamentary abomination (ie, where the head of government is the leader of the House of Representatives and the President is a mere figurehead), then we simply have to ensure that when we elect a person to the Presidency that we are sure he or she is fit for the job.  King Obama is the first man we’ve elected who is entirely unfit by temperment, training and education for the Presidency – and it shows in the way he is (deliberately or not is immaterial) wrecking the manner of American government.

So, rather than whine about what Obama has done, let us set to work with a will to oust him on November 6th and then lay the lesson to heart:  never be fooled again.

The Easiest Prediction in the World: That Liberals Will Fail

First off, a blast from the past – January 1st, 2011:

…the Californians wanted it. People get the government they deserve, and they usually get it good and hard. California is America’s Greece and when the collapse hits, hopefully a majority will wake up to the fact that liberalism is a failure.

And, now – from the New York Times:

The state budget shortfall in California has increased dramatically in the last six months, forcing state officials to assemble a series of new spending cuts that are likely to mean further reductions to schools, health care and other social programs already battered by nearly five years of budget retrenchment, state officials announced on Saturday.

Gov. Jerry Brown, disclosing the development in a video posted on YouTube, said that California’s shortfall was now projected to be $16 billion, up from $9.2 billion in January. Mr. Brown said that he would propose a revised budget on Monday to deal with it…

Given that this is the New Y0rk Times, you do have to be careful – the budget shortfall didn’t “increase dramatically”; it was built in.  When Jerry and the liberals of the California legislature passed their budget they made a whole bunch of absurd assumptions both as to revenues and expenditures…that they would be, respectively, much higher and much lower than what has actually happened.  Any real analyst would have predicted this right from the start –  or, even, just a moderately informed amateur, like me.

The key to understanding what is wrong with America is to understand three things:

1.  We spend too much money via government.

2.  Our debt is too large to be managed given our current ability to create wealth.

3.  Our ability to create wealth is hampered endlessly by the tax and regulatory system.

All three of these problems are liberal-created problems:  it is liberals who want to spend too much (yes, plenty of Republicans join in, but liberals always lead the way…as is shown by the fact that they increased federal spending by a trillion per year since Obama took office).  Because we spend too much, we end up borrowing too much – and now our debt (federal, State and local) is so large that, given our current base of wealth, it simply cannot be repaid (when you factor in the un-funded mandates).  Our only way out of this mess is to cut spending and grow wealth – but we can’t grow wealth effectively because liberals have erected a positively Byzantine tax and regulatory system which rewards failure and punishes effort and success.

Liberalism must go if America is to survive.  Remember this as we approach November.




Thou Shalt Not Have Strange gods…

Eleven million taxpayer-funded dollars.  Supposedly to help 400 people in Detroit find jobs.  Even if every one of those 4o0 people found a job, that would be $27,500 in taxpayer money spent, per job.  Ludicrous enough, no?

Well, what if only TWO (2) of those 400 people found jobs?

A chunk of an $11 million stimulus grant meant to provide low-income Detroit residents with clothing for job interviews reportedly aided just two people — far short of the 400 job-seekers the money was meant to help.

The findings were part of a new audit on the city’s Department of Human Services, according to The Detroit News.

That, my friends, comes to a cost of $5.5 MILLION dollars.  Per job.  Nice return on investment there, Barry.
Fast forward to yesterday (emphases added):

In the wake of lobbying by President Obama and Senate Democratic leaders, the Senate Thursday defeated legislation to speed up construction of a U-S.-Canadian oil pipeline.The White House victory came after the president started personally calling Democratic senators Wednesday night. The vote underscored the extent to which rising gas prices and energy supply have become a central political issue.

So, to Barack Obama, a stimulus program that costs taxpayers hundreds of millions, and which is a failure by any clear-thinking person’s standards is hailed as a success; while killing a program that creates at least 25,000 jobs, all without a dime of taxpayer money, is somehow considered a ‘victory.’

To Barack Hussein Obama, nothing can be successful; nothing can be true and real unless it is a direct machination of government. No matter how big the failure a government program is, it is still a success, because to a statist like Obama, nothing is possible, nothing is real unless it has its underpinnings in government.

To Obama, Government is reality. The government is the source of all that is good and just in the world.  The private sector is what is contrived. To Obama, the private sector is an anomaly; an abomination that must be controlled so as not to infringe upon the government’s influence in people’s lives. The god of Government is a jealous god. Thou shalt not have strange Gods before it.  Even religion itself takes a back seat to Obama’s real religion.

(image credit here)

After all, in order to appease the god of Government and to gain its good graces, one must certainly give alms:

More than half of Obama’s 47 biggest fundraisers, those who collected at least $500,000 for his campaign, have been given administration jobs. Nine more have been appointed to presidential boards and committees.

At least 24 Obama bundlers were given posts as foreign ambassadors, including in Finland, Australia, Portugal and Luxembourg. Among them is Don Beyer, a former Virginia lieutenant governor who serves as ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein.


Obama has appointed 59 ambassadors who were not career Foreign Service officers, and of those, 40 percent were bundlers.

Welcome to the church of Obama.

God help its heretics.

Artist Depicts obAMATEUR Trampling the Constitution

obAMATEUR Tramples the Consitution

Discuss, have at it.

Let’s see, for example …. just recently Barak Hussein Obama ignored the religious freedom and “practice thereof” (1st Amendment for you products of government schools) of millions of Americans by FORCING them to disregard their religious beliefs, through the actions of the Dept of HHS regulations by not extending an exemption, and to provide insurance which covers contraceptive medications and other procedures by Catholic business owners, Catholic hospitals, etc. etc.

Also notice that it does not take effect until after the election, since he is too much of a coward to defend his position during an election year.

Of course the usual liberal and drone reaction (especially wally’s) will be:

 Here is a little reminder for us conservatives when trying to argue with drones (like wally):

Restarting the engine of capitalism

As we head into what is clearly the most important election in most of our lifetimes, possibly as some have said, the most important election since 1860, the biggest question in my mind is, how do we restart the engine of capitalism?  I believe the presidential candidate that best articulates the answer to that question will win hands down.

My personal feeling is that three of the most critical things that have to happen are (1) a national energy plan that promotes both energy independence and abundant, economical energy; (2) revamping our tax structure to make it simpler, broader based, more equitable and, most important, predictable over a reasonably lengthy period of time; and (3) revamp government regulations from top to bottom.  In a sentence, we need to get away from a system that penalizes success and rewards failure to one that does the exactly the opposite.

All comments are welcome, but please folks, try to engage in at least a modicum of critical thinking.  This is an opportunity for our resident Liberals to tell us what you would do to get our economy moving in the right direction again.  Any posts that simply advocate making the wealthy pay more will be deleted.  Surely at least some of our more intellectual Progressives can come up with Liberal ideas that have worked in the past or maybe even some new ideas that have never been tried before.  Everything is on the table except wealth redistribution — oh, heck, even that’s on the table if you can make a convincing case for where it has worked in the past.