With all the pressing issues of the day, it is outrageous that the moderator of Meet the Press, Mr. David Gregory, spent so much time last week badgering House Speaker John Boehner about President Obama’s religious beliefs and citizenship status. Even though Boehner continuously stated he believed the President was a Christian and a citizen, Mr. Gregory was clearly disturbed with the fact that Boehner had not used his position as Speaker of the House to issue or enforce some sort of official statement. When Boehner replied that it was not his job to tell Americans what to think or believe, Gregory question his leadership capabilities.
Contrast Mr. Gregory’s attitude toward Senate Majority LeaderHarry Reid during an interview a few weeks ago and the bias is quite apparent. Harry Reid actually proclaimed on Meet the Press that we are not in a crisis in Social Security, that the Social Security system is “arithmetically sound”and that the problem of Social Security was merely fiction — perpetuated by people who do not like government! Yet, on an issue of such monumental factual error, Mr. Gregory left the Senate Majority Leader’s gross distortion of facts completely unchallenged.
The bias and misinformation continuing to be disseminated by weekend political talk shows is deeply infuriating.
At a recent dinner, I asked a friend of mine if he would join me as a supporter of the Tea Party but he balked at the idea. This intrigued me; I know that he champions smaller government and fiscal responsibility – policies the Tea Party stands for as well. When I pressed him, he admitted that there’s a feeling about the Tea Party that makes him uncomfortable.
This got me thinking. My experience with the Tea Party movement, at least in New York, has been nothing less than superb. I’ve met a true cross-section of people – entrepreneurs, office workers, doctors, retirees, young people. They are intelligent, decently educated, passionate individuals. It astounds me that there is a great disconnect between what the Tea Party stands for and what the public perspective is. People need to understand that the Tea Party is not what the press portrays it to be – it is not out-of-touch, crazy, or reactionary. The Tea Party is about smaller government, lower taxes, the Constitution, and individual liberty. That’s it.
I am sure that there are Tea Party followers who have off-the-mainstream and even strange opinions, as do followers of any group. For instances, some Tea Partiers may be pro-immigration, while others may not be. It doesn’t matter; that is, there is no right or reason for any Tea Partier to be saying anything about immigration reform in the context of the Tea Party. Such opinions are not relevant to their Tea Party association. And though these ancillary opinions would be disregarded in other organizations, they become front and center – for liberals and the press – who want to diminish the Tea Party or try to sow discord.
The Tea Party is a movement of ordinary American people who share an excellent philosophy. The fact that they continue to be targeted, tarred, and trashed by the left-wing media should be an outrage to all Americans.
The Tea Party will be successful by continuing to impress upon Americans – person by person – the need for restraint in government, in taxes, and in spending.
#1) ON TAX BREAKS FOR THE WEALTHY: “And if we truly care about our deficit, we simply cannot afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Before we take money away from our schools, or scholarships away from our students, we should ask millionaires to give up their tax break. It’s not a matter of punishing their success. It’s about promoting America’s success”.
FACT: The highest-income earners are the greatest investors. Investment is much more stimulative than consumptive spending; raising the tax margin punishes the earners and the economy – while theat extra revenue will go straight to the government. These top 2% earners also provide nearly 50% of small business income in this country; by targeting them, Obama is also hurting businesses.
#2) ON FIXING THE TAX CODE: “Over the years, a parade of lobbyists has rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries. Those with accountants or lawyers to work the system can end up paying no taxes at all. But all the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world”
FACT: This is purely populist rhetoric. Accountants and lawyers do not eliminate tax liabilities. And it is not so much lobbyists as it is legislators pandering for votes who put in provisions intended to help their own individual special interests. This happened in the 1986 Tax Act under Ronald Reagan, when tax rates from 50% to 28% in exchange for a large number of deductions and writeoffs. However, the ink was barely dry when Congress used that as an opportunity to jack the rates up from 28% to 39.6% — which lasted until the Bush tax cuts pushed them back a little bit.
#3) ON A FEDERAL FREEZE FOR FIVE YEARS: “I am proposing that starting this year, we freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years. This would reduce the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade, and will bring discretionary spending to the lowest share of our economy since Dwight Eisenhower was president”.
FACT: Obama’s federal freeze comes after he has increased our spending 25% in two
years. We need to go back to FY2008 and start from there.
#4) ON JOB CREATION: “We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology – an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people”
FACT: “Invest” is just code for increased government spending. Here’s an example of the government picking industry winners and losers, something they have no business – or qualifications – doing. This policy will result in a net job losses – taking away from market directed companies in order to subsidize activities that cannot justify investment by the free market. A better and more impacting idea would be to give businesses research credits that companies could use and develop on their own.
#5) ON CLEAN TECHNOLOGY: “Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they’re selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: by 2035, 80% of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources. Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas”.
FACT: There is no clear consensus on the best type of clean energy. This only means continued uncertainty in the business markets, which will hamper the rate of recovery.
Something about Bernanke’s speech today at the National Press Club regarding QE2 struck me.
Administrative support for quantitative easing is just another blatant example of political hypocrisy. The rationale behind quantitative easing – that it would spur investment – was vilified by the Democrat leadership when the same strategy was applied to “tax cuts for the wealthy”.
Bernanke, Geitner, the Fed, and the liberal members of Congress all support and push QE2. They argue that purchasing huge amounts of Treasury securities will reduce long term interest rates. The effect will be stimulative because this action forces the other potential buyers to do something else with their money – invest in higher risk and more economically stimulative activity.
Yet aren’t these the same people who were against tax cuts for the highest-income earners? Their argument then was that those higher income earners would not put their tax savings for economic stimulative use. Though this is not correct (as a CPA financial and tax advisor to that very segment of the population, I can assure you that large portions of tax savings are invested), the hypocrisy here is quite staggering.
The supporters of QE2 praise lower interest rates but not lower tax margins? They laud investment as a key strategy for economic recovery – but only when it is artifically and unconventionally controlled by the government? This dichotomy is both calculated and conniving and ultimately endangers the economic future of this country.
In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other ways to tackle health care short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.
“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.
Well, this might be the best Chris Christie-tells-off-pubic-employees video yet. In part because in this case the poor policeman doesn’t come off as arrogant, and also because Christie does his best to level with the guy and respect him. But that doesn’t keep Christie from flinching when it comes to leveling with the guy. Money quote: ““Here’s the thing: You’re getting a paycheck. And there are 9% of the people in the state of New Jersey who are not.”:
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something likethis:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.”Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.”I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10! “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!” “That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
Even though this anecdote has been around for awhile, it is a great example of how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
