The Chicken Little Hypocrisy Rebuke

Ragnarok will come someday, tomorrow, come someday,tomorrow,come someday. Ragnarok will come someday and we’ll all be killed.

Unless you give all your rights, freedoms, and your money and do exactly as we say when we say it because we say it!

DO as we Say, not as we Do and Do It Yesterday!

“This year, in Paris, has to be the year that the world finally reaches an agreement to protect the one planet that we’ve got while we still can,” said U.S. President Barack Obama on his recent trip to Alaska. Miguel Cañete, the EU’s chief negotiator, has warned there is “no Plan B — nothing to follow. This is not just ongoing UN discussions. Paris is final.”

The Apocalypse is here. Never Let a Crisis, even one you make up, go to waste.

The world is doomed if you don’t submit!

Conventional wisdom holds that negotiators are hashing out a fair allocation of the deep emissions cuts all countries would need to make to limit warming. That image bears little resemblance to reality.

In fact, emissions reductions are barely on the table at all. Instead, the talks are rigged to ensure an agreement is reached regardless of how little action countries plan to take. The developing world, projected to account for four-fifths of all carbon-dioxide emissions this century, will earn applause for what amounts to a promise to stay on their pre-existing trajectory of emissions-intensive growth.

Here’s how the game works: The negotiating framework established at a 2014 conference in Lima, Peru, requires each country to submit a plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, called an “Intended Nationally Determined Contribution” (INDC). Each submission is at the discretion of the individual country; there is no objective standard it must meet or emissions reduction it must achieve.

Beyond that, it’s nearly impossible even to evaluate or compare them. Developing countries actually blocked a requirement that the plans use a common format and metrics, so an INDC need not even mention emissions levels. Or a country can propose to reduce emissions off a self-defined “business-as-usual” trajectory, essentially deciding how much it wants to emit and then declaring it an “improvement” from the alternative. To prevent such submissions from being challenged, a group of developing countries led by China and India has rejected “any obligatory review mechanism for increasing individual efforts of developing countries.” And lest pressure nevertheless build on the intransigent, no developing country except Mexico submitted an INDC by the initial deadline of March 31 — and most either submitted no plan or submitted one only as the final September 30 cut-off approached.

After all this, the final submissions are not enforceable, and carry no consequences beyond “shame” for noncompliance — a fact bizarrely taken for granted by all involved.

So it’s just The Agenda is The Agenda, and my don’t we look wonderful for “doing something” when in fact it’s all just a gigantic redistribution con.

But MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change calculates the improvement by century’s end to be only 0.2 degrees Celsius. Comparing projected emissions to the baseline established by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change back in 2000 shows no improvement at all.

And therein lies the sticking point on which negotiations actually center: “climate finance.” Climate finance is the term for wealth transferred from developed to developing nations based on a vague and shifting set of rationales including repayment of the “ecological debt” created by past emissions, “reparations” for natural disasters, and funding of renewable energy initiatives.

The issue will dominate the Paris talks. The INDCs covering actual emissions reductions are subjective, discretionary, and thus essentially unnegotiable. Not so the cash. Developing countries are expecting more than $100 billion in annual funds from this agreement or they will walk away. (For scale, that’s roughly equivalent to the entire OECD budget for foreign development assistance.)

Somehow, the international process for addressing climate change has become one where addressing climate change is optional and apparently beside the point. Rich countries are bidding against themselves to purchase the developing world’s signature on an agreement so they can declare victory — even though the agreement itself will be the only progress achieved. (Politico.eu)

The climate change summit in Paris that aims to tackle global warming will itself pump an estimated 300,000 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it was claimed today.

Around 50,000 people including world leaders, businesses and activists are expected to travel from across the globe for the two-week conference in Paris which started today.

Most will arrive by plane from as far afield as New Zealand, Sydney and Bermuda, while others will arrive by train and car.

According to calculations by Wired and Steven Stoft of climateParis.org, the average round trip per attendee will be around 9,000 miles.

Taking the fuel consumption of a Boeing 747 – around 16.5 miles per gallon – which the website describes as a ‘happy medium between private jets and bullet trains’, it is estimated around 27 million gallons of fuel will be used by travellers attending the conference. 

This figure was arrived at by multiplying the number of attendees by the average round-trip mileage to get 450million miles then multiplying that by 16.5miles per gallon.

With each gallon of fuel producing around 21 pounds of carbon dioxide, the total released by planes flying to and from Paris is thought to be about 575million pounds (290,000 tons), according to rough calculations.

But given that some planes will very likely carry more than one attendee, this figure is likely to be at the very highest end. 

The total still pales in comparison with the annual global output of 80 quadrillion pounds, meaning the Paris conference equates to around 22 seconds of the world’s production. 

In an opening speech at the summit, Prince Charles warned world leaders that ‘we are becoming the architects of our own destruction’ as he called for immediate action to halt global warming.

The heads of 151 nations have kicked off 12 days of talks in Paris in search of an elusive pact that would wean the world off fossil fuels, making it the largest gathering of global leaders in history.

The Prince of Wales urged them to ‘think of your grandchildren, as I think of mine’ as well as the billions of people without a voice and the youngest generation as they try to secure a new global deal. 

He said: ‘If the planet were a patient, we would have treated her long ago. 

‘You, ladies and gentlemen, have the power to put her on life support and you must surely start the emergency procedures without further procrastination.

‘Humanity faces many threats but none is greater than climate change. In damaging our climate we are becoming the architects of our own destruction. 

‘We have the knowledge, the tools and the money (to solve the crisis).’

Over the next fortnight negotiators from 195 countries will attempt to hammer out a deal that will put the world on a path to prevent temperatures rising by more than 2C above pre-industrial levels and avoid dangerous climate change. 

French President Francois Hollande later echoed his statement by telling leaders that ‘the hope of all of humanity’ rested on their shoulders.

And anyone who stands in their way is evil and wants to destroy mankind, naturally. 🙂 No hyperbole there.

In an opening speech at the conference centre in Paris, the French President said: ‘Never have the stakes of an international meeting been so high because it concerns the future of the planet, the future of life. The hope of all of humanity rests on all of your shoulders.’  

Barack Obama also painted a dire picture of the future without aggressive action to curb carbon emissions, describing submerged countries, abandoned cities and fields that won’t grow.

In a speech, he said: ‘As the leader of the world’s largest economy and the second largest (greenhouse gas) emitter… the United States of America not only recognises our role in creating this problem, we embrace our responsibility to do something about it.’

The U.S. President also called the climate talks an ‘act of defiance’ by the world community following the Islamic State-linked attacks two weeks ago. 

The Islamic Radicals who want to kill you don’t care about your green defiance. Not one bit. As a matter of fact they are making an estimated $5 million dollars a day off of the profits from the oil fields you refuse to bomb because of your environmentalist radicalism. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Chinese President Xi Jinping said an eventual global climate deal must include aid for poor countries and acknowledge differences between developing and established economies. 

Xi, speaking at U.N.-led climate talks near Paris on Monday, said an agreement should also include transfer of climate technology to developing countries.

He said a deal should accommodate national interests, adding: ‘It’s imperative to respect differences’ among countries, especially developing ones.

‘Addressing climate change should not deny the legitimate needs of developing countries to reduce poverty and improve living standards,’ he said.

World leaders had earlier held a moment of silence in honor of people killed in recent attacks in Paris, Beirut, Baghdad, Tunisia and Mali.

The U.N. climate conference in Paris is most likely humanity’s last chance to thwart global environmental disaster, Pope Francis said on Monday, warning the world was “at the limits of suicide”.

The pope, who wrote a major document on the environment last June, made the comment in an hour-long news conference aboard the plane returning him to Rome at the end of a six-day trip to Africa.

The freewheeling conversations have become a trademark of his papacy and the few times he takes direct questions from journalists.

Francis, who visited Kenya, Uganda and the Central African Republic, also said the continent was “a martyr of exploitation” by wealthy countries who lust after its natural resources and try to impose Western values instead of concentrating on development.

The pope was asked if the U.N. climate summit in Paris would mark a turnaround in the fight against global warming.

“I am not sure, but I can say to you ‘now or never’,” he said. “Every year the problems are getting worse. We are at the limits. If I may use a strong word I would say that we are at the limits of suicide.”

He spoke of retreating glaciers in Greenland and low-lying countries at risk from rising sea levels.

“I am sure that the (Paris delegates) have goodwill to do something. I hope it turns out this way and I am praying that it will,” he said. (Daily Mail)

An echo chamber of activist groups and media outlets stands ready to rubber-stamp the final agreement as “historic,” validating the vast reservoirs of political capital spent on the exercise.

It’s a redistribution shell game to make Leftists and Socialists “feel good” about “doing something” thus validating their superiority.

And you get to pay for the privilege of being a serf under their rule.
Worry, they are happy. Don’t worry, they don’t care if you suffer.
It’s all about their power over you and their superiority in their own minds.
They are, after all, Homo Superior Liberalis, and you’re not, SERF.
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Dana Summers
Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Bend Over, Here Comes ObamaClaus

KING Barack Hussein Obama…

And he’s going to make it with your taxes. So the tax that’s a penalty that actually a tax is now going to raise your taxes to pay for the penalty that is a tax. Got it.

Obamacare is killing the heath insurance industry, but help for health insurers is on the way – and it will be coming out the pockets of American taxpayers via higher insurance rates and a federal bailout.

When the government says, “Explore other sources of funding” and “working with Congress on the necessary funding,” it’s time to hide your wallet and get ready to study a few more pages of tax code.

As MRCTV reported Thursday, United Healthcare lost $425 million on its policies sold via the Obamacare exchanges, and they might back out of the exchanges all together after 2016. And United Healthcare isn’t alone. U.S. insurers had to absorb nearly $2.9 billion in unexpected medical expenses from their customers in Obamacare’s exchanges in 2014, according to new data from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The Milwaukee Sentinel Journal reports that some of the deficit will be made up with higher premiums, much higher premiums.

And Obama and Company will blame it on “corporate greed” not a fatally flawed partial socialized medicine designed to fail.

Many insurers have requested premium increases of 20% to 40% for next year. In August, Blue Cross Blue Shield secured approval in Tennessee for a 36.3% price hike, while Oregon OK’d a 25.6% increase for Moda Health Plan.

Even these premium increases are mild compared with what’s coming when the risk corridor provision and other stopgaps expire.

A recent University of Minnesota study found that after 2016, the cheapest plans would experience some of the most dramatic premium increases. Families who purchased “bronze” plans on the exchanges could see 45% increases. Some unlucky individuals could see their premiums shoot up 96%.

“Our data still indicate that — for at least the next decade — premiums will increase faster than they did in the years before the Affordable Care Act’s implementation,” cautioned one of the study’s authors. “Federal subsidies for ACA plans won’t be able to keep up.”

But, the federal government is going to try make the subsidies keep up. Pres. Obama’s Department of Health and Humans Services (HHS) is promising insurance companies that taxpayers will help them out.

After the United Healthcare announcement on Thursday, HHS issued a letter to insurance companies recognizing the 2014 shortfalls and declaring that the U.S. Government needs to make good:

 In the event of a shortfall for the 2016 program year, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will explore other sources of funding for risk corridors payments, subject to the availability of appropriations. This includes working with Congress on the necessary funding for outstanding risk corridors payments

Risk corridors were created by the Obamacare bill.  The corridors are meant to redistribute money (sound familiar?) from insurance companies who make a bigger profit from exchange plans than expected and give to companies who lost money on the exchange plans.

Yeah, it’s called redistribution. Socialism…

The problem with the risk corridor in 2014 was that too many companies lost money – so, there wasn’t enough money to cover everyone’s losses.  HHS is promising a bailout, or in HHS language, it will work with Congress to get more money for the risk corridors in order to cut insurance companies losses. 

Robert Laszewski, president of consultancy Health Policy and Strategy Associates in Virginia, told CNBC:

“‘The Obamacare business model doesn’t work,’ ‘Obamacare has got to be retooled.’ Laszewski cited the fact that insurers overall still are losing money selling exchange plans in the second year of Obamacare, and that as a result many of them are raising prices, which could in turn lead to current and prospective customers taking a pass on further coverage.” 

According to Nathan Nascimento, Senior Policy Advisor for Freedom Partners:

“We already knew that this Administration has no problem with putting special interests ahead of Americans’ health care – but yet another bailout for insurance companies on the backs of taxpayers only throws more good money after bad. Washington’s flawed one-size-fits-all approach to health care has failed, leading to plan cancelations, skyrocketing premium and out-of-pocket costs, and instability for American families and business. The solution is to get government out of the way – not dig the hole even deeper.”

Supporters of Obamacare are in denial. Much higher heath insurance premiums, insurance company losses needing a federal bailout, and news that almost half of the state-run Obamacare exchanges  have bitten the dust, add up to one inconvenient fact: Obamacare is a failure.  

Was never meant to be anything else.

But the supporters have no choice but to be in denial. They have wanted Socialized Medicine for 100 years and it’s failing so they have hide that from everyone, including themselves.

Sadly, it won’t be the politicians who forced the program down the American people’s throats who will be reaching into their pockets to pay for that failure.  It will be the rest of us, average American families, our children, and our grandchildren paying for this unmitigated disaster. 

Get ready to dig deep for failure. Also, get ready for the spin that will not make it the Liberals fault.

After all, they are always right and always have the best of intentions.

Welcome to the Road to Hell. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

 

 

Fact Free Left

The outrage over another multiple murder of American military personnel on American soil by another Islamic extremist has been exacerbated by the fact that these military people had been ordered to be unarmed — and therefore sitting ducks.

Millions of American civilians have also been forbidden to have guns, and are also sitting ducks — for criminals, terrorists or psychos.

You might think that, before having laws or policies forcing fellow human beings to be defenseless targets, those who support such laws and policies would have some factual basis for believing that these gun restrictions save more lives, on net balance, than allowing more legal access to firearms. But you would be wrong.

Facts, Liberals don’t need no stinking facts. They have their Agenda and that’s all that matters because they are Homo Superior Liberalis and they are never wrong.

evolution of the left

Most gun control zealots show not the slightest interest in testing empirically their beliefs or assumptions. There have been careful factual studies by various scholars of what happens after gun control laws have been instituted, strengthened or reduced.

But those studies are seldom even mentioned by gun control activists. Somehow they just know that gun restrictions reduce gun crime, no matter how many studies show the opposite. How do they know? Because other like-minded people say so — and say so repeatedly and loudly.

And then they get MSNBC and CNN and the Liberal media to repeat it over and over again.

The end justifies the means, regardless of how you got there. The Agenda is The Agenda.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” –Josef Goebbels

A few gun control advocates may cherry-pick examples of countries with stronger gun control laws than ours that have lower murder rates (such as England) — and omit other countries with stronger gun control laws than ours that have far higher murder rates (such as Mexico, Russia and Brazil).

You don’t test an assumption or belief by cherry-picking examples. Not if you are serious. And if you are not going to be serious about life and death, when are you going to be serious?

On Left, about how righteous they are about their Agenda and how to make you follow it no matter what. That is serious business.

Unfortunately, gun control is just one of many issues on which the political left shows no real interest in testing their assumptions or beliefs. The left glorifies the 1960s as a turning point in American life. But they show no interest in testing whether things turned for the better or for the worse.

Homicide rates had been going down substantially, for decades on end — among both blacks and whites — until the 1960s. Plotted on a graph, there is a big U-shaped curve, showing the turnaround after the bright ideas of the left were applied to criminals in American courts of law in the 1960s.

This was not the only U-shaped curve, with its low, turnaround point in the 1960s. The same was true of the venereal disease gonorrhea, whose rate of infection went down in every year of the 1950s — and then skyrocketed, beginning in the 1960s.

Teenage pregnancies had also been going down for years, until the late 1960s, when “sex education” was introduced in schools across the country. Then pregnancy rates rose nearly 50 percent over the next decade, among girls 15 to 19 years old — exactly the opposite of what had been predicted by the left.

Another program that had the opposite effect from its advocates’ claims was the “war on poverty” program created by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

Contrary to what was said during the celebrations of its 50th anniversary last year, the loudly proclaimed purpose of the “war on poverty” was not simply to transfer money or other benefits to the poor. Both Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, and their supporters in Congress and in the media, all clearly stated that the central purpose of the “war on poverty” was to reduce dependency on government.

Both poverty and dependency on government had already been declining for years before this massive program began. The proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level — without counting government benefits — declined by about one third from 1950 to 1965.

This was yet another beneficial trend that reversed itself after another bright idea of the left was put into practice in the 1960s. After half a century and trillions of dollars, the only response of the left has been to change the criteria, so that now the “war on poverty” could be portrayed as a success because it proved that, if you transferred more resources from X to Y, then Y would now have more resources. Who could have doubted that?

And now there are more poor children than in the Depression itself. Less jobs than in the last 40 years. But you won’t hear THAT from the Left.

Changing the goal after the fact is just one of the ways the left has portrayed its failures as successes.

And they continue to do so. Or, for the sake of The Agenda, they just ignore any “inconvenient” truths 🙂 that get in the way of it and demonize you for daring to defy them.

Just do as you are told. Believe what you are told, without question like they do and Utopia awaits you.

And if it doesn’t happen, it’s someone elses fault, like George W. Bush! 🙂

There is no way to know what is going on in someone else’s mind. But sometimes their behavior tells you more than their words.

The political left’s great claim to authenticity and honor is that what they advocate is for the benefit of the less fortunate. But how could we test that?

T.S. Eliot once said, “Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm — but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.”

This suggests that one way to find out if those who claim to be trying to help the less fortunate are for real is to see if they are satisfied to simply advocate a given policy, and see it through to being imposed — without also testing empirically whether the policy is accomplishing what it set out to do.

The first two steps are enough to let advocates feel important and righteous. Whether you really care about what happens to the supposed beneficiaries of the policy is indicated by whether you bother to check out the empirical evidence afterwards.

Many, if not most, people who are zealous advocates of minimum wage laws, for example, never check to see if these laws do more good by raising some workers’ wages than harm by preventing many young and inexperienced workers from finding jobs.

One of my own pieces of good fortune, when I left home at age 17, was that the unemployment rate for black 17-year-old males was in single digits that year — for the last time. The minimum wage law was ten years old, and the wage specified in that law was now so low that it was irrelevant, after years of inflation. It was the same as if there were no minimum wage law.

Liberals, of course, wanted the minimum wage raised, to keep up with inflation. The result was that, ten years later, the unemployment rate for black 17-year-old males was 27.5 percent — and it has never been less than 20 percent in all the years since then.

As the minimum wage kept getting raised, so did the unemployment rate for black 17-year-old males. In 1971 it was 33.4 percent — and it has never been under 30 percent since then. It has often been over 40 percent and, occasionally, over 50 percent.

But people who advocate minimum wage laws seldom show any interest in the actual consequences of such laws, which include many idle young males on the streets, which does no good for them or for their communities.

Advocates talk about people who make minimum wages as if they are a permanent class of people. In reality, most are young inexperienced workers, and no one stays young permanently. But they can stay inexperienced for a very long time, damaging their prospects of getting a job and increasing their chances of getting into trouble, hanging out with other idle and immature males.

There is the same liberal zeal for government intervention in housing markets, and the same lack of interest in checking out what the actual consequences are for the people who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of government housing policies, whether as tenants or home buyers.

They have the best of intentions so consequences don’t matter and they are someone elese fault anyways.

Government pressures and threats forced mortgage lenders to lower their lending standards, to allow more low-income and minority applicants to qualify. But, after the housing boom became a bust, the biggest losers were low-income and minority home buyers, who were unable to keep up the payments and lost everything — which was the very reason they were turned down before lending standards were lowered.

Rent control laws have led to housing shortages in cities around the world. More than a thousand apartment buildings have been abandoned by their owners in New York alone — more than enough to house all the homeless in the city.

High tax rates on “the rich” — however defined — are an ever popular crusade on the left. Who cares about the consequences — such as the rich investing their money overseas, where it will create jobs and economic growth in other countries, while American workers are unemployed and American economic growth is anemic?

All these policies allow the political left to persist in their fact-free visions. And those visions in turn allow the left to feel good about themselves, while leaving havoc in their wake.

For they are Homo Superior Liberalis!

Liberals are like Wile E. Coyote.  For example:

  • Elaborate and expensive ideas and contraptions that always fail miserably.
  • These ideas always come from the same source.  Like Wile E. Coyote using ACME, liberals use John Maynard Keynes, Saul Alinsky, and Karl Marx for their sources every time.
  • The goal is more important than the damage attempting to achieve it causes along the way.
  • Never focusing on the possible consequences, but only focusing on the goal. Unfortunately, for Wile E. Coyote, a Mac truck, a train, an explosive rocket, etc. bring the reality of the lack of ability to see all possible consequences into the picture.  For liberals, the realities of human nature and economics seem to elude them, as they seem to think that this ACME product will work this time, and that their “super genius” will exert control over what is uncontrollable.

Albert Einstein defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”  Anyone watching Wile E. Coyote knows it is just a cartoon intended to make you laugh at the Coyote’s rampant stubbornness and stupidity.  In real life, we would call such behavior insanity.

The Liberals call it The Agenda, and it’s perfection, just like they are. All they have to do is force you to see it. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
But you’re just a “hater” if you disagree.
 crazy old socialist
Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Feed ME!

Must be election season or a distraction again, time for more Class Warfare!

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest confirmed Monday that President Obama is “very interested” in the idea of raising taxes through unitlateral executive action.

“The president certainly has not indicated any reticence in using his executive authority to try and advance an agenda that benefits  <HIS AGENDA>middle class Americans,” Earnest said in response to a question about Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) calling on Obama to raise more than $100 billion in taxes through IRS executive action.

Oh good, the Socialist Senator calling for more taxes from the Socialist President!

“Now I don’t want to leave you with the impression that there is some imminent announcement, there is not, at least that I know of,” Earnest continued. “But the president has asked his team to examine the array of executive authorities that are available to him to try to make progress on his goals. So I am not in a position to talk in any detail at this point, but the president is very interested in this avenue generally,” Earnest finished.

FOR HE IS KING IS HE NOT and like Kings of old he wants more money and he doesn’t care how he gets it he just wants what he wants!

Sanders sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew Friday identifying a number of executive actions he believes the IRS could take, without any input from Congress, that would close loopholes currently used by corporations. In the past, IRS lawyers have been hesitant to use executive actions to raise significant amounts of revenue, but that same calculation has change in other federal agencies since Obama became president.

The King doesn’t need Congress. He doesn’t The Constitution.  His power is supreme, for he is King is he not? 🙂

Obama’s preferred option would be for Congress to pass a corporate tax hike that would fund liberal infrastructure projects like mass transit. But if Congress fails to do as Obama wishes, just as Congress has failed to pass the immigration reforms that Obama prefers, Obama could take actions unilaterally instead. This past November, for example, Obama gave work permits, Social Security Numbers, and drivers licenses to approximately 4 million illegal immigrants.

Those immigration actions, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will raise federal deficits by $8.8 billion over the next ten years.

A new Associated Press-GfK poll finds that 68 percent of Americans think the wealthy don’t pay enough federal taxes, and that 60 percent believe the middle class pays too much — leading media mavens to conclude that voters support President Obama’s proposals to raise investment taxes on the super-rich and spread the wealth around to people who are lower on the economic ladder.

Well, the Ministry of Truth has done a good job with their class warfare rhetoric. Getting the stupid young before they know what’s about to hit them!

It’s no great surprise that middle class voters are feeling overtaxed. This has been a dreadfully slow recovery, and millions in the middle class are treading water at best. Since the recession ended, median family income has fallen by about $1,500 after adjusting for inflation, so the idea of taxing someone else’s paycheck sounds mighty appealing.

Raising tax rates on the rich hurts the economy. It takes money right out from under small and medium-sized business owners, leaving them with less for hiring more workers.

But the idea that the rich aren’t paying any taxes is based on misinformation fed to voters. Politicians and the media have consistently told voters that the wealthiest among us – Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Tom Brady, Taylor Swift – are paying very little income tax compared to the rest of us. 

We are told by no less than Barack Obama that these millionaires and billionaires have all the money, but they don’t bear much, if any, of the burden to pay for the schools, the roads, the police, the welfare benefits and the rest of the tasks of government.

Mr. Obama wants to raise the top 1 percent’s income tax payments to level the playing field and enhance tax “fairness.” So it’s time for a reality test. Here are the latest statistics from the IRS for 2011: 

The top 1 percent earned 19 percent of the total income and paid 35 percent of the federal income tax. So one of 100 shouldered 35 percent of the burden. And the average of the five most recently reported years (2007-2011) is closer to 40 percent. 

Several years ago, Al Sharpton, said the “top 1 percent in this country pays very much less than 10 percent” of the income tax. Most Americans no doubt believe the same thing. Mr. Sharpton’s reward for inaccuracy? A gig on MSNBC.

The table also shows that the top 10 percent pay two-thirds of the income tax, and the bottom 50 percent —Americans with an income below the median — pay just 3 percent. The federal income tax, according to a recent study by the Tax Foundation, is one of the most progressive tax systems in the world. 

Scott Hodge, the Tax Foundation’s president, says: “Almost no other industrialized nation depends on the rich to pay the bills more than the United States.”

What about the super-duper rich — the multimillionaires and billionaires? Warren Buffett has famously said that he pays a smaller share of his income in taxes than his secretary. But when properly accounting for the taxes paid and income earned, the top 0.1 percent paid 16 percent of the income tax. So the top 0.1% paid an aggregate amount more than five times that of half the population. That isn’t enough?

President Obama wants to raise the capital gains and dividend taxes to 28 percent — almost twice what they were when he entered office. He wants an effective inheritance tax rate of over 50 percent. It’s a Robin Hood strategy.

But raising tax rates on the rich is a proven failed policy. History proves that cutting tax rates — not raising them — is a better way to get money out of the rich. 

In 1980, when the highest income tax rate was 70 percent, the richest 1 percent paid roughly 19 percent of the income tax. 

In 2007, when the top tax rate was 35 percent, the tax share of the richest 1 percent was more than twice that amount. 

How did that happen? Raising tax rates on the rich hurts the economy. It takes money right out from under small and medium-sized business owners, leaving them with less for hiring more workers.

The best way to soak the rich is through low tax rates on work and investment, which create a prosperous economy with rising incomes for everyone. 

You don’t have to believe me. Listen to John F. Kennedy, who said at the New York Economics Club in 1962 that “it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.” 

Amen.

 Damn, never knew JFK was  a radical right wing conservative, poor and middle class hater and supporter of the rich!

Who knew. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Define Rich

But first a Border Update:

El Paso, TX — Border Patrol agents will no longer serve as interpreters when local law enforcement agencies request language help; that according to a new decree issued by the department of homeland security.

From now on language assistance requests will be referred to private companies.    

Before, if another agency needed language assistance the border patrol would be called per protocol.

Immigration advocates have complained in the past Border Patrol agents ask people questions about immigration and in some cases arrest immigrants suspected of being in the country illegally.

The Problem: Border Patrol agents might actually ask questions about the Illegals Illegal status and then have to arrest them!!

OMG! The Horror!!!

“The concept of language access should be without people being questioned about their immigration status,” said Jorge Baron, executive director of the Seattle-based Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, a legal aid organization.

So, the solution, just don’t have them ask the question in the first place!!!

Now that’s doing your job! 🙂 (when your job is to NOT do your job and arrest people illegally in this country that is)

Talk about “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell”!!!!! 🙂

Now, isn’t that special….

Victor Davis Hanson:Who exactly were the rich who, as the president said, were not “paying their fair share”? The rapper Jay-Z (net worth: nearly $500 million)? The actor Johnny Depp (2011 income: $50 million)? Neither seems to have heard the president’s earlier warning that “at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

Could both zillionaires simply have quit making money at $10 million — and thereby given their poorer audiences a break on ticket prices?

With all the talk of raising taxes on the supposedly conservative rich who make more than $250,000 per year, why not levy a $3 surcharge on tickets for movies, concerts, and sporting events to “spread the wealth” from multimillionaires? That way, LeBron James (approximate annual earnings: $53 million) or Oliver Stone (net worth: approximately $50 million) might at last begin to “level the playing field.”

Is Michael Moore (net worth: approximately $50 million) a one-tenth-of-one-percenter? If so, why do mansion-living-grandee movie directors like Moore and Stone need state subsidies and tax breaks to produce their films, when most states are nearly as insolvent as the federal government?

Warren Buffett likewise did not heed the president’s advice that after 2008 it was not the time to profit. Did he pay any attention to Obama’s additional warning that, “if you own a business, you didn’t build that”? Apparently not.

Otherwise, Buffett would not think that his own expertise and hard work had built Berkshire Hathaway, or that he has the right to leave his $50 billion fortune to nonprofit institutions of his choice — thereby shorting the Internal Revenue Service billions of dollars in lost estate taxes. With a trillion-dollar-plus annual federal deficit, either the Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Department of Health and Human Services surely could use Buffett’s loot far more than the already well-endowed Gates Foundation.

If the country is going to turn redistributionist, then we might as well do so whole-hog — given that eight of the wealthiest ten counties in America voted for Obama. Why not limit mortgage-interest deductions to just one loan under $100,000 — while ending tax breaks altogether for second and third vacation houses?

Under the present system, the beleaguered 99 percent are subsidizing the abodes of Hollywood and Silicon Valley “millionaires and billionaires” — many of whom themselves have been railing against the 1 percent. Should the government provide tens of thousands of dollars in tax breaks for a blue-state 1-percenter to live in tony Palo Alto or Newport Beach when there are plenty of fine homes far cheaper and sitting empty not far away in Stockton and Bakersfield?

Blue states usually have far higher state income taxes that are used as deductions to reduce what is owed on federal income tax. Why should working folks in Nevada or Texas have to pay their fair share, while Wall Streeters get huge federal write-offs from their New York or Connecticut state income taxes?

With the new obsessions over income and net worth, we might as well also means-test all federal programs. Should anyone — do we remember Solyndra? — be eligible for federal cash loans if he makes over $250,000 per year? Why would affirmative action apply to the children of millionaires like the offspring of Eric Holder, Susan Rice, or, for that matter, Barack Obama, while excluding the destitute children of Appalachian coal miners and the poor clingers of Pennsylvania?

Remember the revolving door that Barack Obama once promised to end? The former head of his Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, used his title and insider contacts to walk right into a Citigroup fat-cat banker’s job that pays him an estimated $2 million to $3 million a year. 

Clinton administration apparatchiks such as Jamie Gorelick, James Johnson, and Franklin Raines — without much banking experience — reaped millions of dollars working at Fannie Mae as it went nearly bankrupt. If you leave government and immediately make more than $1 million, why not pay a 50 percent tax on your income for five years — given that “somebody else made that happen”? Why does Google have tax havens in the Caribbean, and why do six-figure-income college presidents have their taxes paid by their universities?

For much of 2012, Obama waged a veritable class war against conservatives, as if they were all right-wing clones of Donald Trump and the Koch brothers. But modern Democrats — Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, Steven Spielberg, Brian Williams, or Oprah Winfrey — are as likely to be very wealthy as are Republicans, who increasingly better represent small-business owners desperately struggling to become affluent.

Next time around, Republicans might remind us of that paradox by nominating a small-business scrapper, who — unlike millionaires such as Al Gore, John Kerry, or Barack Obama — did not go to prep school and the Ivy League. And they might find better ways for those in academia, entertainment, sports, big law, and the media to pay their fair share.

And I would add The Democrats favorite money bag- Unions.

And 7 of the Top 10 richest in Congress are Democrats.

But remember, it’s evil to be rich, but only if you’re not a Democrat. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

 Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

 

Give the People What they Want III: The Big Government Happy Meal

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Mark Steyn: Nailed it!

Previously on The Perils of Pauline:

Last year, our plucky heroine, the wholesome apple-cheeked American republic, was trapped in an express elevator hurtling out of control toward the debt ceiling. Would she crash into it? Or would she make some miraculous escape?

Yes! At the very last minute of her white-knuckle thrill ride to her rendezvous with destiny, she was rescued by Congress’s decision to set up . . . a Super Committee! Those who can, do. Those who can’t, form a committee. Those who really can’t, form a Super Committee — and then put John Kerry on it for good measure. The bipartisan Super Committee of Super Friends was supposed to find $1.2 trillion dollars of deficit reduction by last Thanksgiving, or plucky little America would wind up trussed like a turkey and carved up by “automatic sequestration.”

Sequestration sounds like castration, only more so: It would chop off everything in sight. It would be so savage in its dismemberment of poor helpless America that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that over the course of a decade the sequestration cuts would reduce the federal debt by $153 billion. Sorry, I meant to put on my Dr. Evil voice for that: ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THREE BILLION DOLLARS!!! Which is about what the United States government currently borrows every month. No sane person could willingly countenance brutally saving a month’s worth of debt over the course of a decade.

So now we have the latest cliffhanger: the Fiscal Cliff, below which lies a bottomless abyss of sequestration, tax-cut-extension expiries, Alternative Minimum Tax adjustments, new Obamacare taxes, the expiry of the deferment of the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate, as well as the expiry of the deferment of the implementation of the adjustment of the correction of the extension of the reduction to the proposed increase of the Alternative Minimum Growth Sustainability Reduction Rate. They don’t call it a yawning chasm for nothing.

As America hangs by its fingernails wiggling its toesies over the vertiginous plummet to oblivion, what can save her now? An Even More Super Committee? A bipartisan agreement in which Republicans agree to cave and Democrats agree not to laugh at them too much? 🙂 (ROTFL!) That could be just the kind of farsighted reach-across-the-aisle compromise that rescues the nation until next week’s thrill-packed episode when America’s strapped into the driver’s seat of a runaway Chevy Volt careering round the hairpin bends on full charge, or trapped in an abandoned subdivision overrun by foreclosure zombies.

I suppose it’s possible to take this recurring melodrama seriously, but there’s no reason to. The problem facing the United States government is that it spends over a trillion dollars a year that it doesn’t have. If you want to make that number go away, you need either to reduce spending or to increase revenue. With the best will in the world, you can’t interpret the election result as a spectacular victory for less spending. Indeed, if nothing else, the unfortunate events of November 6 should have performed the useful task of disabusing us poor conservatives that America is any kind of “center-right nation.” A few months ago, I dined with a (pardon my English) French intellectual who, apropos Mitt Romney’s stump-speech warnings that we were on a one-way ticket to Continental-sized dependency, chortled to me, “Americans love Big Government as much as Europeans. The only difference is that Americans refuse to admit it.”

My Gallic charmer is on to something. According to the most recent (2009) OECD statistics: government expenditures per person in France, $18,866.00; in the United States, $19,266.00. That’s adjusted for purchasing-power parity, and yes, no comparison is perfect, but did you ever think the difference between America and the cheese-eating surrender monkeys would come down to quibbling over the fine print? In that sense, the federal debt might be better understood as an American Self-Delusion Index, measuring the ever widening gap between the national mythology (a republic of limited government and self-reliant citizens) and the reality (a 21st-century cradle-to-grave nanny state in which, as the Democrats’ convention boasted, “government is the only thing we do together”).

Generally speaking, functioning societies make good-faith efforts to raise what they spend, subject to fluctuations in economic fortune: Government spending in Australia is 33.1 percent of GDP, and tax revenues are 27.1 percent. Likewise, government spending in Norway is 46.4 percent and revenues are 41 percent — a shortfall but in the ballpark. Government spending in the United States is 42.2 percent, but revenues are 24 percent — the widest spending/taxing gulf in any major economy.

So all the agonizing over our annual trillion-plus deficits overlooks the obvious solution: Given that we’re spending like Norwegians, why don’t we just pay Norwegian tax rates?

No danger of that. If (in Milton Himmelfarb’s famous formulation) Jews earn like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans, Americans are taxed like Puerto Ricans but vote like Scandinavians. We already have a more severely redistributive taxation system than Europe in which the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans pay 70 percent of income tax while the poorest 20 percent shoulder just three-fifths of one percent. By comparison, the Norwegian tax burden is relatively equitably distributed. Yet Obama now wishes “the rich” to pay their “fair share” — presumably 80 or 90 percent. After all, as Warren Buffett pointed out in the New York Times this week, the Forbes 400 richest Americans have a combined wealth of $1.7 trillion. That sounds a lot, and once upon a time it was. But today, if you confiscated every penny the Forbes 400 have, it would be enough to cover just over one year’s federal deficit. And after that you’re back to square one. It’s not that “the rich” aren’t paying their “fair share,” it’s that America isn’t. A majority of the electorate has voted itself a size of government it’s not willing to pay for.

A couple of years back, Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute calculated that, if Washington were to increase every single tax by 30 percent, it would be enough to balance the books — in 25 years. If you were to raise taxes by 50 percent, it would be enough to fund our entitlement liabilities — just our current ones, not our future liabilities, which would require further increases. This is the scale of course correction needed.

If you don’t want that, you need to cut spending — like Harry Reid’s been doing. “Now remember, we’ve already done more than a billion dollars’ worth of cuts,” he bragged the other day. “So we need to get some credit for that.”

Wow! A billion dollars’ worth of cuts! Washington borrows $188 million every hour. So, if Reid took over five hours to negotiate those “cuts,” it was a complete waste of time. So are most of the “plans.” Any “debt-reduction plan” that doesn’t address at least $1.3 trillion a year is, in fact, a debt-increase plan.

So given that the ruling party will not permit spending cuts, what should Republicans do? If I were John Boehner, I’d say: “Clearly there’s no mandate for small government in the election results. So, if you milquetoast pantywaist sad-sack excuses for the sorriest bunch of so-called Americans who ever lived want to vote for Swede-sized statism, it’s time to pony up.”

Okay, he might want to focus-group it first. But that fundamental dishonesty is the heart of the crisis. You cannot simultaneously enjoy American-sized taxes and European-sized government. One or the other has to go.

Bravo!

So you want everything and you want some else to pay for it because you want what you want when you want it because you deserve it?

Time for Mom and Dad to step up and say, so how are you going to pay for it dear?

I’ll take Mr. Smither’s money, he’s rich, he can afford it.

That’s nice dear, then what it’s not sustainable? And what about Mr. Jones wanting to take your money now because YOU have it?

And how does that solve the problem? You can’t have money for nothing?

Uhhh…. 🙂

beach balls

 

Fear is Hope 2012

FEAR IS HOPE

Because they are constantly talking about hope. But all they do is spread fear, anger, envy, and other negative emotions.

So Fear must therefore be Hope.

“He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.”-Orwell.

And since the liberals view of the past decade is one of total evil and you should fear that evil coming back, and you should have hope for a brighter, more vibrant America under their rule than letting that evil back in, Fear is Hope.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act”-Orwell

And there can’t be more deceit going on now than in any recent memory.

“It’s still fear versus hope; the past versus the future,” Obama said from Cleveland, Ohio Sept 8th, “It’s still a choice between sliding backward and moving forward. That’s what this election is about. That’s the
choice you’ll face in November.”

Mind you, that was September 2010. Sounds like now doesn’t it! 🙂
The same tune. The same Pied Piper.The same Rats.

Hope lays in the Democrats and only the Democrats. We will save you!

FEAR IS HOPE

War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength

I wrote this almost 2 years ago now. It’s still true.
https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/the-4th-precept/

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

In another sign of the ongoing jobs recession, fully 44 states saw their unemployment rates climb in July, according to state-level data released Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

As a result, more than three years after the economic recovery officially started under President Obama, 10 states still have jobless rates of 9% or higher. (IBD)

The national unemployment rate has been over 8% for nearly 4 years straight.

But confront a liberal and all they’ll say is “well he’s created 4 million jobs” and that’s it. That’s all you’ll get.

Deception and misdirection is all they want to give and all you’ll get.

This doesn’t even keep up with the population growth and the retiring of baby boomers that started 2 years ago.

There are now 305 million Americans (it was 250 in 1990). In just 12 years there is projected to be 352 million. And how many millions will have retired and expect Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security to be their own personal bank account?

But the Left will never tell you that.

But if you disagree with them you must be a rich-loving, poor-hating SOB!

In times of of universal deceit the truth is revolutionary. 🙂

FEAR IS HOPE

“Spreading the Wealth” by Stanley Kurtz

“Re-elect him and you’ll see that he is after the pocketbooks of a whole lot more than just 1% of us,” he warned in the book. “His real target is America’s middle class, suburbanites in particular.”

Added Kurtz, a senior fellow at the Ethics & Public Policy Center: “Many suburban voters now planning to support him will find their incomes and their children’s schools the targets of his redistributive schemes in a second term. The 1% slogan is a sham. If your income is in the top 50%, Obama is after you.”

Citing recent White House policy meetings with radical community organizers, Kurtz warns that Obama is saving his most jarring initiatives for a second term, when he no longer has to court the middle class.

They’ll see “concerted moves to force regional tax-base sharing on the states,” he said, “and federal pressure to equalize urban and suburban school funding.”

Kurtz, an expert on Obama’s community-organizing days, says the president is following the playbook of his philosophical mentor, Saul Alinsky.

The socialist Alinsky wrote in “Rules for Radicals” that the best way to revolutionize society is to convince the middle class you are on its side. That requires talking and dressing like that group of Americans while issuing bland slogans about “hope” and “change.”

“Tactics must begin with the experience of the middle class, accepting their aversion to rudeness, vulgarity and conflict,” Alinsky said. This will anesthetize middle America “prior to the social surgery to come.”

“Start them off easy,” he said, “don’t scare them off.”

Alinsky and his disciples believe the suburbs create “structural racism” and “economic segregation.”

The goal is to abolish them by pushing urban poor into the suburbs through a combination of discrimination lawsuits and regulations while redistributing suburban wealth to the cities through “regional equity” programs.

Alinsky’s followers believe the middle class is racist and greedy. This notion, Kurtz notes, is what drew Obama to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church and its attacks on the “the pursuit of middleclassness.”

Kurtz says Obama’s stealth plan to abolish the suburbs includes:

• Forcing bedroom communities to build subsidized housing units under the threat of HUD lawsuits.

• Forcing regional tax-redistribution plans on the states by conditioning receipt of federal funding on such “regional equity plans,” which are now being formulated under the administration’s Sustainable Communities Initiative.

• Using the carrot of federal funds to usurp state and local control of schools.

• Forcing public schools to adopt politicized curricula and lower education standards, which are now being formulated under the administration’s Common Core Initiative.

The president’s talk about defending and helping the middle class is essentially a smoke screen. Behind the scenes, he and his Alinsky pals are scheming to redistribute the wealth of the suburban middle class. (IBD)

FEAR IS HOPE

And CHANGE is only good if their is no change, in leadership.

When he becomes free to do whatever he wants because he no longer has to pander to anyone. He can just do it. The Executive Order Fiat President who is more “flexible” because he is not Chained by re-election.

Now if that doesn’t scare you, you’re a Liberal.

That’s real FEAR.

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

 Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez