Select Page

Free Will and Capitalism

The question of additional taxes on the wealthy is really a liberty and equity issue, impinging on the very entrepreneurial environment that made our country great. At the heart of any monetary decisions should be free will, not a free lunch.

Stop and think about it for a minute. In my adult life, in a free country such as ours, it is entirely my judgment as to whether or not I want to work hard and try to earn a lot of money, and/or risk my money via investments. Such choices are made only after careful deliberation. And one of the factors going into that decision is how much tax I will pay on my winnings, my successes. That is why it is unequivocally immoral that our government – or any government – should feel it has the place and authority to come along after I earned my success and basically declare that because I have done well for myself, I should have to pay more to that government. This is legal plunder.

I have right and the liberty to factor into my decision making process what the government states I must owe under law, and decide whether that amount and calculation would be amenable to my overall situation and goals. The government has no right to retroactively come along and declare that I must detract from my commitment to invest in my self, my education, my career, or anything else because it needs a greater revenue stream. Why should I, who have proven myself to be successful (according to the government) have to give my success over to people who have proven to grossly mismanage our country’s finances?

When people say things such as Exxon makes X so many billions of dollars a year and therefore they can afford to pay more, such a statement only reflects the gross naivete and ignorance of basic financial rules. Without a frame of reference, unless that number is coupled with how much money was invested or needed to be invested in order to earn that earnings figure, such a statement is worthless rhetoric. If a company makes $10 billion, but has $100 billion invested in the company (which is quite typical for major corporations), that would be a 10% return.

When put into that perspective of how much was invested to get that ROI, 10% isn’t quite so much. Would you invest millions or billions for the risk of a 10% return or the risk of losing it all? Most would not. If you have money invested in something like a bank that is a very safe investment, but you also get a pretty low return. If you are investing in something in which you have the chance of losing, you risk everything hoping to get that 10, 15, 20% return. With any investment, be it oil or a bowling alley business, you would not have access to that kind of risk capital unless it was strongly anticipated to get that larger-than-safe-return: you risk losing it all. And yet, many companies and individuals still make the investment. Good for them.

So then with those who were able to make a decent return on investment, Obama’s tax policies are simply a death wish for our country. If we go out in the free market looking at companies and individuals investing millions and billions a year, and the government leaves alone the ones who do poorly on their investments but leeches onto the winners, the successful ones, this is what it essentially tells them: you were so successful, we want and deserve a piece of your success. We are happy, though, to allow you to lose your money alone.

Doesn’t everyone see the lunacy and disingenuousness of going after the oil companies when oil is $100 a barrel but ignoring them when oil is $20 a barrel? Or screaming about their 4% profits yet say nothing about the government’s gas tax of about 18 cents per gallon? This type of targeted hypocrisy only supplies us with 1) more political posturing and talking points and 2) attempts at additional revenue streams.

Having a policy to target the winners with an additional tax after they become winners will eventually destroy those winners because no one will want to invest or earn over a certain threshold. This will stymie and financially ruin our country, founded upon the backs of small businesses, hard work, entrepreneurship, free minds, free society, and free economy.

Those who are prosperous should be given the same liberty to manage their success as any other citizen, not additional tax penalties. How can we honestly and morally take extra money from those taxpayers who have been able to create wealth and employment successfully and give it to the government and politicians who manage to continuously and egregiously squander income?

Will Obama Wait?


There are two important fiscal dates coming up in February: February 12 and February 15.

February 12 is the scheduled date of Obama’s State of the Union speech, which is also Lincoln’s birthday.

It also happens to be three days before the “X Date”, February 15, the estimated date that the Treasury may not be able to pay its bills. The debt ceiling deadline.

Does anyone want to speculate as to whether the President of the United States is going to announce during his State of the Union Address that he will be unilaterally bypassing Congress to raise the debt ceiling?

Picture the all-too-familiar scenario: it’s February 12th, and Congress will be deadlocked over raising the debt ceiling, cutting spending, raising taxes, and sequestration scenarios. We know that there will be no decision by then, because deadlines mean nothing in Congress – as we just witnessed with the fiscal cliff debates running down to the wire.

The Senate Democrats have already set up a plan in preparation. Senator Harry Reid sent a letter to Obama saying,

“In the event that Republicans make good on their threat by failing to act, or by moving unilaterally to pass a debt limit extension only as part of an unbalanced or unreasonable legislation, we believe you must be willing to take any lawful steps to ensure that America does not break its promises and trigger a global economic crisis — without congressional approval, if necessary”

Such fiscal urgency from the same group that has failed to pass a budget since April 29, 2009.

Can Obama do this? That’s up for debate, as both sides of the aisle have given their evidence for or against such a move.

But wait. Does anyone remember the “We Can’t Wait” policy implemented by Obama in the fall of 2011, following the last debt ceiling showdown? The White House describes the program:

“President Obama is not letting congressional gridlock slow our economic growth. Without a doubt, the most urgent challenge that we face right now is getting our economy to grow faster and to create more jobs…. we can’t wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job. Where they won’t act, I will.”

The narrative is being shaped. We have Obama’s program “We Can’t Wait” in place. According to the whitehouse.gov , Obama has issued 45 Executive Orders under this program. Couple the program with Reid’s letter, the time frame for the State of the Union and the potential default of the Treasury, and you have a perfect storm.

Be prepared. Be prepared for Obama to trot out imagery, language and ideas from Lincoln and work them into his State of the Union address as a backdrop to an announcement on the debt ceiling. Obama can, and will, propose that “We Can’t Wait” for Congress to act (or not act) on a potential default – since it is certain they will be gridlocked – and will use an Executive Order lifting the debt ceiling limit. This will change the ensuing discussion on taxes, spending, and sequestration. But will it also change forever the nature and function of the presidency?

To Owe Or Not to Owe


Most people like receiving a tax refund – it’s kind of like a windfall for many people, especially those for whom saving is a difficult discipline. However, getting a big tax refund from the IRS may not necessarily be the best thing for you in certain situations.

Try to think about your refund in a different way. Essentially, you are giving the government an interest-free loan, which they give back to you when you file your taxes. There’s really no reason to do that, other than you like the surprise surplus.
A lot of people don’t like the idea of owing the government, or are afraid they will not have the money available at tax time to pay the bill. That is a valid concern. However, if you adjust your withholding enough so that you owe on April 15th, that also means you have more money in your paycheck each month.

In reality, whether you owe the government or they owe you, the amount of tax collected is virtually the same. The difference is whether you have your taxes paid for you via your paycheck, and have a smaller paycheck because of it (and a refund in the spring), or whether you set the money aside on your own and have a little bit more to take home from work every pay period.
If you set your withholding so that you’ll owe at tax time, you are in essence holding your own money longer. This can be helpful in situations such as being in debt, where payments are due every month. By having extra in your paycheck due to having less money deducted for taxes, you could use the extra money to pay a little more on your debt, thereby reducing the amount of interest you pay in the long run. Some people prefer this approach. 

Whether you like to keep your own money until tax time or whether you prefer the windfall method, you can achieve this your preference by going to visit your Human Resources administrator. If you want more money in your paycheck – and possibly owing the IRS, claim more dependents. If you prefer a refund, claim fewer dependents. The form to make changes on is called a W-4. It’s always good practice once a year to review your tax and financial situation and make adjustments as necessary.

You can also find this article over at my Examiner.com page — where you’ll be able to find other tax preparation advice from me.

Capital Gains Shell Game


Back in 2008 when Obama was debating Hillary Clinton on national TV, Obama noted that raising the capital gains rate would likely reduce federal revenue collections, but insisted it was good policy anyway — because it was a policy of “fairness”.

Why would raising the capital gains tax be a revenue loss? The effect of higher taxes on jobs and income would slow the economy. The two sides of the equation are the ones who think that a loss of jobs is worth the potential increased revenue, while others insist that the any positive revenue amounts would be fairly small and not worth the damage to jobs and the economy.

Certainly, at a time like this in our country when the economy is quite sluggish and unemployment is high, the last thing we need is a policy that hurts more jobs and income. Yet such a policy was just implemented. A hike in capital gains makes it more expensive for a business to raise the capital it needs to operate. What’s more, couple that with the new 3.8% surtax on investment income that begins here in 2013 (from the Obamacare legislation) and you have now an 8.8% tax hike for some people. Throw in the hike for those who make over $400k/$450K and you have even more taxes – on the very type of taxpayers who have money to create jobs and/or invest.

One has to wonder if the budget scoring being done by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on this tax will actually bill it as revenue collected, even though economists –and Obama — acknowledge it as a revenue loss.

The capital gains rate hike was a ruse, a shell game. Any revenue raised will be offset by slower economic growth. Is it worth it? Right now? It’s a shame for this country that Obama continued to push for a policy that would have a negative effect on jobs and the economy in an effort to promote “fairness through taxation” and try to level the field on his terms.

Radio Show, January 8

I’ll be on the opening show of the third season of American Complaint Department, a radio show hosted on blogtalkradio.

You can tune in here at 11:45pm EST to listen live.

The American Complaint Department does just what they say — complain. They have a panel of moderators: liberal, conservative, and libertarian, so on the show and online, you’ll get views from all sides of the spectrum.

Tonight we’ll be discussing my views on the Fiscal Cliff. Enjoy!

Update: You can listen to the show here. I’m at the 45:00 mark.

Needing More For Retirement


Imagine an employer gives a turkey to his employees each year for Thanksgiving. Then one year, the cost of the turkey doubles, but he still gives everyone a turkey anyway. That year, the employee is getting an increase in the value of their pay (the extra cost of the turkey).

The same logic applies to a person getting insurance with their job. If a person gets a 2% pay increase, but the medical benefits costs for the employer also increases $30 more a month then the employee pay goes up 2% plus the $30.00. Many people don’t understand those “hidden” costs regarding benefits and compensation, but that’s how it works.

In the same way, if the cost of providing a defined benefit plan costs your employer now 25% more, or goes up by X dollars more, that X dollars is ultimately additional pay going to you, whether or not you tangibly see it. Nowadays, mainly government workers and some unions are typically the only ones who have defined benefit plans; most employers have moved away from them to a defined contribution plan because of the spiraling costs inherent in a defined benefit plan. A downside, however, is that regular people in private sector jobs with 401Ks critically need to put more of their own money away for retirement because their money investment is growing so slowly.

On the other hand, Obama’s administration is doing two thing that are directly and substantially increasing the cost of employers to maintain a defined benefit plan: 1) keeping interest rates so low that employers just have to invest more just to get a decent rate of return; and 2) increased regulations, which slow the growth of business and impede business gains, thereby slowing the rate of return. On top of this, the government is ignoring the huge increased cost of fringe benefits they provide (i.e, the turkeys) in their budgets – something a private company simply cannot ignore. If a private company were to do so, then it risks going out of business . Therefore, it must account accurately and completely for its costs.

The government however, won’t ever go out of business. It merely passes off these huge costs to the employee – or worse, to the taxpayer. Higher costs to the taxpayer means less money for you. Less money for you means harder savings for the future.

Overall, you will need to put away more for retirement. If you have a defined benefit plan, the long-term projections and promises may be scaled back at some point in the future once the plan proves to be unsustainable. In a defined contribution plan, continued sluggish growth for investments make it difficult for retirement plans. Whatever your strategy, know that you will definitely need more than you think you do right now.

The House Republicans Caved — Roll Call Vote Tally Below


The House passes the Senate bill

257-167 was the vote tally.
Here’s the official list of yeas and nays:

—- AYES 257 —
Ackerman
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Barletta
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boehner
Bonamici
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curson (MI)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DelBene
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luján
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Marino
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schock
Schwartz
Scott, David
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Speier
Stivers
Sullivan
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Womack
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

—- NOES 167 —

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berg
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Boustany
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Burgess
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Conaway
Cooper
Cravaack
Crawford
Culberson
DeFazio
DeLauro
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Latham
Long
Lummis
Mack
Marchant
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McDermott
McHenry
McIntyre
McKinley
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Moran
Mulvaney
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rehberg
Renacci
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Smith (NE)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Terry
Tipton
Turner (OH)
Visclosky
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woodall
Yoder
Young (IN)

—- NOT VOTING 8 —

Buerkle
Burton (IN)
Graves (MO)
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Paul
Stark
Woolsey

Thoughts?

Roll Call & Votes for Senate Fiscal Cliff Bill


Measure Number: H.R. 8 (Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act of 2012)
Measure Title: An act entitled the “American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.

Alphabetical by Senator Name.
Those who voted NO or DID NOT VOTE are in bold

Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Ayotte (R-NH), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea
Blunt (R-MO), Yea
Boozman (R-AR), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Brown (R-MA), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Coats (R-IN), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Coons (D-DE), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Not Voting
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Franken (D-MN), Yea
Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Heller (R-NV), Yea
Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johanns (R-NE), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Johnson (R-WI), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kirk (R-IL), Not Voting
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Not Voting
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Lee (R-UT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Manchin (D-WV), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Merkley (D-OR), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Moran (R-KS), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Paul (R-KY), Nay
Portman (R-OH), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Risch (R-ID), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Rubio (R-FL), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Schatz (D-HI), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Toomey (R-PA), Yea
Udall (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea

Look Ma — No Spending Cuts!


So, in the cloak of night, while the rest of the nation celebrates the start of a new year, the Senate voted 89 to 9 in favor of the “American Taxpayer Relief Act” crafted by Biden and McConnell. The funny thing is, there is no “taxpayer relief” in the act.

The Congressional Budget Office has calculated that the bill includes $620 billion in revenue increases via tax hikes. Additionally, because the bill “kicks the can” on a myriad of spending programs, the actual spending cuts total a mere $15 billion. That’s 41 times more taxes than spending reduction — and it’s spending which is the root of the problem!

It is incomprehensible that McConnell was actually proud of this bill. He pointed out that now that the tax (revenue side) is settled, “now it’s time to get serious about reducing Washington’s out-of-control spending. That’s a debate the American people want. It’s the debate we’ll have next. And it’s a debate Republicans are ready for.”

Gimme a break. They’ve had plenty of time since Simpson-Bowles failed and the Super Committee failed to “get serious about reducing Washington’s out-of-control spending”.

The tax hikes include:
— An increase from 35% to 39.6% for individuals above $400K and couples above $450K. Way to punish families!
— Itemized deductions and personal exemptions and will be limited once individuals meet the $200K threshold and couples meet the $250K threshold.
— The Estate Tax (Death Tax) increases from 35% to 40% on all individual estates above $5 million and family estates above $10 million.
— Dividends and Capital Gains rates increased from 15% to 20%.
— There will be a permanent AMT “patch” as well, finally indexing it to inflation.

What about the spending cuts side? Here’s what they did:

— A $30B one-year extension of 73 week unemployment insurance, — which effects about 2 million people.
— A $30B one-year extension of the Medicare “doc fix”
— A 5 Year Extension of 2009 Stimulus tax credits aimed at college students and low-income workers.
— An extension on the Wind Production Tax Credit (the 2.2 cent per kilowatt/hour credit) that gives a refund to a wind company if it doesn’t turn a profit.

Additionally, Sequestration was delayed for two months –right about the time that the debt ceiling will reach its limit.

So many questions swirling around at this point. Do the Republicans actually think this is a good thing? That there won’t be factions at negotiation time in a couple months (defense/fiscal, etc). Why are we supposed to consider accepting more taxes now with the “promise” of spending cuts later? How is this better than Simpson-Bowles? (or even “Plan B” for that matter?) This is supposed to be an example of a “balanced approach”?

The two things to come out of this “package” are that 1) Obama was able to shape the narrative and make this about taxes, not spending; and 2) Obama was able to make Republicans break their pledge about not voting for new taxes. The damage has been done. The effects of these negotiations will be very long-term.

Let’s hope the House Republicans have the courage to do what it right. Chime in with your thoughts.