Same old Story

Fiscal Policy: Stop us if you’ve heard this one: Republicans propose pro-growth tax reform to boost the economy, and liberals indignantly shout out: “tax cut for the rich.”

Everyone knows the current tax code is a millstone around the neck of our economy. Almost all the Republicans running for president have admirable tax plans, and one of the best is the flat tax proposed by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz that would lower business taxes to 16% on net business income and 10% on personal income — wages, salaries, capital gains and dividends.

The Tax Foundation says it would boost wages, output and net income about 10% over the next decade — which is an extra $2.5 trillion in GDP and millions of new jobs.

Right on cue, the leftwing Tax Policy Center has trashed the plan, calling it a tax cut for the rich and an $8.6 trillion increase in the debt over 10 years. And the lapdogs of the liberal media ate it up.

The TPC has about zero credibility on these issues. Its tax models predicted the Reagan tax cuts would lead to massive revenue losses and that the Clinton-era capital gains cut would blow a hole in the deficit. In both cases revenues didn’t shrink — they swelled. And the share of taxes paid by the rich soared in each case.

But the TPC’s shattered crystal ball doesn’t let history get in the way of a good story — especially if the theme is class warfare.

The center relies on what is called “static analysis.”  It assumes the economy will not grow much if tax rates are lowered and savings and investment are encouraged through a less-punitive tax code. But if the tax rate on working and investing is lowered, then expect more work and more investment. History bears this out again and again.

TPC says high-income taxpayers would get an average tax cut in 2017 of about $6,100, while the poor would save only $46. But most of the poor in the bottom one-third pay almost no income tax at all. How do you cut income taxes for people who don’t pay income taxes?

Nothing could be less fair than our current wreckage of a tax code. The people at the bottom of the income ladder don’t have jobs, don’t have paychecks and don’t have income outside of welfare benefits. The TPC can never seem to figure out what Ted Cruz said when he introduced his flat tax: “The best way to help the poor is with a job — not a government handout.” (IBD)

sowell- liberal caresowell-complain

Happy Tax Increases Everyone!

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

As part of the fiscal cliff, the top tax rate on dividends is scheduled to nearly triple in 2013.  Here are some questions you might have:

What is a dividend?  A dividend is a cash payment that a company makes to shareholders.
What type of people receive dividends?  Almost everyone benefits from dividends.  If you are covered by a traditional pension or 401(k) plan at work, you almost certainly own dividend-paying stocks and mutual funds that own dividend-paying stocks.  Ditto for your IRA or Roth IRA.  Additionally, the IRS data cited above shows that over 25 million American families choose to receive dividends directly.

Traditional pensions, 401(k)s, and IRAs are accounts for middle class Americans, not rich people.  That’s where many dividends end up.  Additionally, nearly 23 million out of the 25 million American families that get paid dividends directly earn less than $200,000 per year.  Over 40 percent of all taxable dividends are earned in these households.

Not just evil “rich” “angry white guys” or “evil” Corporate America. 🙂

Obamacare contains twenty new or higher taxes. Five of the taxes hit for the first time on January 1.  In total, for the years 2013-2022, Americans face a net $1 trillion tax hike for the years 2013-2022, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The five major Obamacare taxes taking effect on January are as follows:

The Obamacare Medical Device Tax:  Medical device manufacturers employ 409,000 people in 12,000 plants across the country. Obamacare imposes a new 2.3 percent excise tax on gross sales – even if the company does not earn a profit in a given year.  In addition to killing small business jobs and impacting research and development budgets, this will increase the cost of your health care – making everything from pacemakers to artificial hips more expensive.

The Obamacare Flex Account Tax: The 30-35 million Americans who use a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account (FSA) at work to pay for their family’s basic medical needs will face a new government cap of $2500. This will squeeze $13 billion of tax money from Americans over the ten years. (Currently, the accounts are unlimited under federal law, though employers are allowed to set a cap.)

There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children.  There are several million families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. This Obamacare tax provision will limit the options available to these families.

The Obamacare Surtax on Investment Income: This is a new, 3.8 percentage point surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single).  This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income:

Capital Gains   Dividends  Other*2012
    
15%                     15%             35%2013+ (current law)
    

23.8%                43.4%       43.4%

The table above also incorporates the scheduled hike in the capital gains rate from 15 to 20 percent, and the scheduled hike in dividends rate from 15 to 39.6 percent.

The Obamacare “Haircut” for Medical Itemized Deductions: Currently, those Americans facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI).  This tax increase imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. By limiting this deduction, Obamacare widens the net of taxable income for the sickest Americans.  This tax provision will most harm near retirees and those with modest incomes but high medical bills.

The Obamacare Medicare Payroll Tax Hike:  The Medicare payroll tax is currently 2.9 percent on all wages and self-employment profits.  Under this tax hike, wages and profits exceeding $200,000 ($250,000 in the case of married couples) will face a 3.8 percent rate instead. This is a direct marginal income tax hike on small business owners, who are liable for self-employment tax in most cases. The table below compares current law vs. the Obamacare Medicare Payroll Tax Hike:
 
First $200,000                 All Remaining Wages
($250,000 Married)        Employer/Employee  
Employer/Employee    
                       
Current Law
1.45%/1.45%                       1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed           2.9% self-employed

Obamacare Tax Hike
   
1.45%/1.45%                       1.45%/2.35%
2.9% self-employed           3.8% self-employed

2012 CBO Report on Revenue Effects of Obamacare
Tax Hike
2013-2022

Tax Penalty Payments by Uninsured Individuals $55 billion

Tax Penalty Payments by Employers $106 billion

Excise Tax on High-Premium Insurance Plans $111 billion

Associated Effects of Coverage Provisions
on Tax Revenues $216 billion

Reinsurance and Risk Adjustment Collections $184 billion

Fees on Manufacturers and Insurers $165 billion

Additional Hospital Insurance Tax $318 billion

Other Revenue Provisions $87 billion

Courtesy of ATR

This won’t hurt everyone, the economy and job “growth” now will it!

But don’t worry,it’s still Bush’s Fault!! That will keep you warm by the fire, until they ban it (bad for the environment, you know) or tax it that is…

Happy New Year. Happy New Tax Increases EVERYONE…. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Christmas Day Sing Along

I'll be Broke Fro Christmas


Baracka Claus is comin’ to town
Baracka Claus is comin’ to town

You better not work
You better not try
Get your hand out
I’m telling you why
Source: LYBIO.net

Baracka Claus is comin’ to town
Baracka Claus is comin’ to town
Baracka Claus is comin’ to town

If you’re a success
I’m taxin’ you twice
Gonna reverse who’s naughty and nice

Hey!
Baracka Claus is comin’ to town
Baracka Claus is comin’ to town
Baracka Claus is comin’ to town
I’ll pay you just for sleeping
Don’t work, stay home and play
You will care if you’re bad or good
‘Cause if you’re bad you get more cake

So, Republicans watch out
I’m lookin’ real fly
Media shouts ‘We elected our guy’

Hey!
Baracka Claus is comin’ to town
Baracka Claus is comin’ to town
Baracka Claus is comin’ to town

The market’s goin’ down
Why do you have a frown?

Baracka Claus is comin’ to town

Now the Christmas Sermon….
The whole gospel of Karl Marx can be summed up in a single sentence: Hate the man who is better off than you are. Never under any circumstances admit that his success may be due to his own efforts, to the productive contribution he has made to the whole community. Always attribute his success to the exploitation, the cheating, the more or less open robbery of others. Never
    under any circumstances admit that your own failure may be owing to your own weakness, or that the failure of anyone else may be due to his own defects – his laziness, incompetence, improvidence, or stupidity.”

American economist and philosopher Henry Hazlitt wrote the above.  Hazlitt understood Socialism and its evil foundations.

As we read, “Hate the man who is better off than you are,” our thoughts turn toward President Barack Obama.  Obama’s 2012 Presidential campaign was heavily focused on creating envy and hatred for those who have high incomes and wealth.  Obama promised his supporters that he would reward them by punishing “the rich,” whom he characterized as those in the upper 2% income bracket.

Saul Alinsky said of his book Rules for Radicals,

    “The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

Obama promised a “balanced” approach to taxes and spending. But data from the CBO and OMB show spending will surge 55% over the next 10 years under Obama — nearly $2 trillion in added spending — swamping Obama’s promised “cuts” of $880 billion.

And remember he borrows $5 Billion dollars A DAY. 🙂

Merry Christmas. Enjoy it while you’re allowed to.

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Over the Cliff

More from “Jar Jar Binks” Boehner:

Under the leadership of House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio), the 112th House of Representatives has thus far approved legislation that has increased the debt of the federal government by approximately $18,944 for per American household.

The 112th House of Representatives has achieved this in a little more than 20 months time—and it may not be done yet enacting laws to approve new federal borrowing and spending.

On March 1, 2011, Boehner and President Barack Obama cut their first short-term federal spending deal. That deal took effect on March 4, 2011. Since then all new borrowing and spending by the federal government has been approved in laws enacted by Boehner’s House consistent with its constitutional power to control the borrowing and spending by the federal government. (KFYI)

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

AP
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): There’s a lot of talk right now about an impending fiscal cliff. But we already went over a cliff economically in this country a long time ago.The current debate over tax hikes is an empty one built upon a false premise. The debate is whether raising tax rates will address our current crisis. The premise is that it is a lack of taxation that has led to the crisis. Both are hopelessly wrong.President Obama’s proposed tax increases on the top 2% of earners would fund the federal government for about eight days. Even if we taxed Americans earning over $1 million on 100% of their income, we would raise only about $600 billion in revenue.

Taxing citizens at this level is a tyranny even Europe hasn’t reached, and still it would only address about one-third of our deficit.

If one actually does the math, “taxing the rich” turns out to be no real solution at all, only fantasyland rhetoric.

Every dollar the government takes is another dollar used unproductively. Every dollar removed from the private sector and wasted in the hands of bureaucrats is a dollar that will not be used to purchase goods, to pay for services or to meet a payroll.

Every dollar the government ever takes — today, tomorrow and forever — is an attack on jobs and the economy.

Instead of sitting around trying to think of new ways to vote away someone else’s money, Washington leaders should finally begin to address the real crisis that has threatened us long before the current handwringing: spending.

With a $16 trillion national debt and well over $1 trillion annually in deficits, we barreled over the edge of fiscal insolvency long before this month.

Why do we lurch from deadline to deadline with no apparent action on our nation’s problems until the next deadline approaches? I presented Social Security and Medicare reform to the Senate over a year ago. I directly spoke to the president and vice president about my plan. And their response? Absolutely nothing!

Is it any wonder people are fed up with their government? The president announces we have no time for spending reforms, but when the deadline passes I predict not one committee will step into the breach to begin the process of reform.

Why? Because Democratic leadership still insists that Social Security and Medicare are just fine. Meanwhile, Social Security actuaries tell us that Social Security this year will spend $165 billion more than it receives. Medicare will spend $3 for every $1 it collects. Yet, the president says he doesn’t have time for entitlement reform.

The “fiscal cliff” scenario has come and gone. The only question now is: How do we recover?

The only solution is to cut spending. It’s no secret to anyone, except perhaps Washington leaders, that our current levels of spending are not only unsustainable, but the main culprit in our fiscal crisis.

Opponents of spending reductions — whether Democrats who insist on maintaining and expanding current domestic spending, or Republicans who insist on maintaining and expanding current Pentagon spending — make the case that any cuts to their preferred parts of government would be “Draconian” or “devastating.”

Like tax hikes, this too is a false narrative. According to the Congressional Budget Office, nominal spending in 2008 was $2.5 trillion. The outlays for the 2013 budget are an estimated $3.5 trillion.

This means the federal government plans on spending $1 trillion more next year than it did four years ago. By any measure, this is a significant and dramatic growth in spending.

Estimated revenue for 2013 is $2.9 trillion if the Bush tax cuts expire. Our 2012 revenues were $2.4 trillion, which included the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts would only make a difference of $500 billion this year — about one third of our entire deficit — but would also further harm our economy due to the job market decline that always accompanies any rise in taxes. History has proved this point time and again.

But if we spent only at 2008 levels combined with the revenues of 2012, next year we would have a deficit as small as $89 billion. An $89 billion deficit would represent less than 1% of GDP. The 2012 deficit was as high as 7.3% of GDP.

Did anyone think the size of government we had in 2008 was somehow not enough government? This is how drastically spending has increased in just the last four years.

Those who argue we can’t cut spending are basically saying that our federal government was far too small when Barack Obama entered the White House and that now we can survive only if government continues to spend at its current level. I know few if any Americans who honestly believe this, Republican or Democrat.

It’s also hard to imagine reasonable people actually believing that our government spending this obscene amount of money is somehow what makes our economy tick.

A real plan would extend the tax rates we’ve had for 12 years, reform entitlements and examine any and every way to significantly cut spending. Right now, House GOP leadership seems to want Republicans to be the party that raises taxes just a little less than the Democrats. This will not do.

Republicans are supposed to be the party of limited government and low taxes. These are our most core and basic principles. I don’t think it’s time to change who we are or what we stand for. It will not help our economy. It will also defeat the purpose of even having a Republican Party.

And that’s what Sith Lord Obama wants, By the way… “Those are not the Spending Cuts you are looking for…”:)
Sith Apprentice Harry Reid: “Now is the time to show leadership, not kick the can down the road,” Reid said. “Speaker Boehner should focus his energy on forging a large-scale deficit reduction agreement. It would be a shame if Republicans abandoned productive negotiations due to pressure from the tea party, as they have time and again.” (NBC)
But nothing the Democrats propose actually cuts spending or the deficit in anyway that is actually meaningful. But that’s the trick.
Make the stupid people think that it is meaningful and the Republicans are getting in the way so they take the fall for it when it fails miserably.
It’s tactical. not practical.
Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals: Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have.
“The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”
According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”
So Boehner Proposes and Obama and Reid Dispose, even if it’s a plan that essentially mimics on their own it still is “protecting the rich” and is not “good enough”.
Simple. 🙂

“He (President Barack Obama) is not willing to accept a deal that doesn’t ask enough of the very wealthiest in taxes and instead shifts the burden to the middle class and seniors,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said in a statement. “The president is hopeful that both sides can work out remaining differences and reach a solution so we don’t miss the opportunity in front of us today.”

Boehner’s spokesman said: “The White House’s position defies common sense.”

“After spending months saying we must ask for more from millionaires and billionaires, how can they reject a plan that does exactly that?” spokesman Brendan Buck said. “By once again moving the goal posts, the president is threatening every American family with higher taxes.”

Because that isn’t the goal, Jar Jar. This is Chess not Poker. Simple, really. 🙂
Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

Food For the Sowell Chapter III

With all the talk about taxing the rich, we hear very little talk about taxing the poor. Yet the marginal tax rate on someone living in poverty can sometimes be higher than the marginal tax rate on millionaires.

While it is true that nearly half the households in the country pay no income tax at all, the apparently simple word “tax” has many complications that can be a challenge for even professional economists to untangle.

If you define a tax as only those things that the government chooses to call a tax, you get a radically different picture from what you get when you say, “If it looks like a tax, acts like a tax and takes away your resources like a tax, then it’s a tax.”

One of the biggest, and one of the oldest, taxes in this latter sense is inflation. Governments have stolen their people’s resources this way, not just for centuries, but for thousands of years.

Hyperinflation can take virtually your entire life’s savings, without the government having to bother raising the official tax rate at all. The Weimar Republic in Germany in the 1920s had thousands of printing presses turning out vast amounts of money, which the government could then spend to pay for whatever it wanted to pay for.

Of course, prices skyrocketed with vastly more money in circulation. Many people’s life savings would not buy a loaf of bread. For all practical purposes, they had been robbed, big time.

A rising demagogue coined the phrase “starving billionaires,” because even a billion Deutschmarks was not enough to feed your family. That demagogue was Adolf Hitler, and the public’s loss of faith in their irresponsible government may well have contributed toward his Nazi movement’s growth.

Most inflation does not reach that level, but the government can quietly steal a lot of your wealth with much lower rates of inflation. For example a $100 bill at the end of the 20th century would buy less than a $20 bill would buy in 1960.

If you put $1,000 in your piggy bank in 1960 and took it out to spend in 2000, you would discover that your money had, over time, lost 80 percent of its value.

Despite all the political rhetoric today about how nobody’s taxes will be raised, except for “the rich,” inflation transfers a percentage of everybody’s wealth to a government that expands the money supply. Moreover, inflation takes the same percentage from the poorest person in the country as it does from the richest.

That’s not all. Income taxes only transfer money from your current income to the government, but it does not touch whatever money you may have saved over the years. With inflation, the government takes the same cut out of both.

It is bad enough when the poorest have to turn over the same share of their assets to the government as the richest do, but it is grotesque when the government puts a bigger bite on the poorest. This can happen because the rich can more easily convert their assets from money into things like real estate, gold or other assets whose value rises with inflation. But a welfare mother is unlikely to be able to buy real estate or gold. She can put a few dollars aside in a jar somewhere. But wherever she may hide it, inflation can steal value from it without having to lay a hand on it.

No wonder the Federal Reserve uses fancy words like “quantitative easing,” instead of saying in plain English that they are essentially just printing more money.

The biggest and most deadly “tax” rate on the poor comes from a loss of various welfare state benefits– food stamps, housing subsidies and the like– if their income goes up.

Someone who is trying to climb out of poverty by working their way up can easily reach a point where a $10,000 increase in pay can cost them $15,000 in lost benefits that they no longer qualify for. That amounts to a marginal tax rate of 150 percent– far more than millionaires pay. Some government policies help some people at the expense of other people. But some policies can hurt welfare recipients, the taxpayers and others, all at the same time, even though in different ways.

Why? Because we are too easily impressed by lofty political rhetoric and too little interested in the reality behind the words.

AMEN!

Vote for me, the other guy’s an asshole! 🙂

Vote Me, I will grab “free” stuff for you from evil rich bastards! 🙂

John Stossel: Politicians claim they make our lives better by passing laws. But laws rarely improve life. They go wrong. Unintended consequences are inevitable.

I wonder how unintended they are, really…But that’s me I’m much more cynical. 🙂

Most voters don’t pay enough attention to notice. They read headlines. They watch the Rose Garden signing ceremonies and hear the pundits declare that progress was made. Bipartisanship! Something got done. We assume a problem was solved.

Intuition tells us that government is in the problem-solving business, and so the more laws passed, the better off we are. The possibility that fewer laws could leave us better off is hard to grasp. Kids visiting Washington don’t ask their congressmen, “What laws did you repeal?” It’s always, “What did you pass?”

And so they pass and pass — a thousand pages of proposed new rules each week — and for every rule, there’s an unintended consequence, or several.

It’s one reason America has been unusually slow to recover from the Great Recession. After previous recessions, employers quickly resumed hiring. Not this time. The unemployment rate is still near 8 percent. It only fell last month because people stopped looking for jobs.

Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute understands what’s happening.

“Add up all the regulations and red tape, all the government spending, all the tax increases we’re about to get — you can understand why entrepreneurs think: “Maybe I don’t want to hire people. … I want to keep my company small. I don’t want to give health insurance, because then I’m stuck with all the Obamacare mandates.” We can see our future in Europe — unless we change. Ann Jolis, who covers European labor issues for The Wall Street Journal, watches how government-imposed work rules sabotage economies.

“The minimum guaranteed annual vacation in Europe is 20 days paid vacation a year. … In France, it starts at 25 guaranteed days off. … This summer, the European Court of Justice … gave workers the right to a vacation do-over. … You spend the last eight days of your vacation laid up with a sprained ankle … eight days automatically go into your sick leave. … You get a vacation do-over.”

It’s only “fair”, right? 🙂

Such benefits appeal to workers, who don’t realize that the goodies come out of their wages. The unemployed don’t realize that such rules deter employers from hiring them in the first place.

And the media sure as hell isn’t going to tell them. Those Evil Capitalist bastards!

In Italy, some work rules kick in once a company has more than 10 employees, so companies have an incentive not to hire an 11th employee. Businesses stay small. People stay unemployed.

“European workers have the right … to gainful unemployment,” says Jolis.

Both European central planners and liberal politicians in America are clueless about what really helps workers: a free economy.

Because they want everything to be “fair” which ends up being very authoritarian. The very opposite of free.

Funny how that worked out… 🙂

The record is clear. Central planners failed, in the Soviet Union, in Cuba, at the U.S. Postal Service and in America’s public schools, and now they stifle growth in Europe and America. Central planning stops innovation.

Yet for all that failure, whenever another crisis (real or imagined) hits, the natural instinct is to say, “Politicians must do something.”

In my town, unions and civil rights groups demand a higher minimum wage. That sounds good to people. Everyone will get a raise!

The problem is in what is not seen. I can interview the guy who got a raise. I can’t interview workers who are never offered jobs because the minimum wage or high union pay scales “protected” those jobs out of existence.

The benefit of government (SET ITAL) leaving us alone (END ITAL) is rarely intuitive.

Because companies just want to make a buck, it’s logical to assume that only government rules assure workers’ safety. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration sets safety standards for factories, and OSHA officials proudly point out that workplace deaths have dropped since it opened its doors.

Thank goodness for government, right? Well, not so fast. Go back a few years before OSHA, and we find that workplace deaths were dropping just as fast.

Workers are safer today because we are richer, and richer societies care more about safety. Even greedy employers take safety precautions if only because it’s expensive to replace workers who are hurt!

Government is like the person who gets in front of a parade and pretends to lead it.

In a free society, things get better on their own — if government will only allow it.

And this government most certainly won’t. But that’s what the American people wanted, so let them lie down in that bed of mediocrity and socialist utopias.

Maybe all the bed bugs will finally shock them, but I doubt it.

Unenlightened Narcissism has a way of blind the stupid to reality and that is surely the main focus these days.

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 

Life is Hard…SNAP

Ah, that “roaring back” Obamanomics…Adding more government dependents  to the Democrats’ Voter rolls.

Participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps, reached another high in September, according to new data released by the United Stated Department of Agriculture.

The most recent data on SNAP participation were released Friday, and showed that 47,710,324 people were enrolled in the program in September, an increase of 607,559 from the 47,102,765 enrolled in August.

The number of households enrolled in the program also increased from 22,684,463 in August to 22,973,698 in September, an increase of 289,235. The average benefit, according to the new data, was $134.29 per person and $278.89 per household.

The new numbers mean that an estimated one in 6.5 people in America were on food stamps in September.

In the 1970s, one out of every 50 Americans was on food stamps. Since 2001, spending on the program has quadrupled and doubled in the last four years.

Well, it’s better than depending on oneself. Let someone else pay for it while I kick back and enjoy it.

Government dependency is so much easier than reality and self-reliance. The money will never run out….

And after all, the unemployment rate is “dropping” according to the Ministry of Truth and out Lord and Master, Big Brother Barack. So how can that be? 🙂

99 weeks of Federal unemployment (on top of what the states pay), is not exactly incentive for the freeloader to get off their butts and get a job.

And besides, “the rich” should pay. The poor are owed their “fair share” after all. So why bother being industrious.

Besides, IF YOU ARE Industrious and successful the government will come looking for you to pay “your fair share” anyhow so best to just lay low and just stay in the shadows and collect other people’s money. So what’s on the “View” today?

Then you have a government  that is borrowing $5 Billion dollars a day is not easy to do, and then want to Spend Even More.

So what is a sloth to do but sit in front of their flat screen TV, tweet on their smart phone  (or make calls on their free Obamaphone) and eat their government food and watch “Judge Judy”.

Life is Hard.

And those “tax cuts” that Obama Claus is promising…Well, since they don’t exist and ObamaCare is TAX (just ask the Supreme Court) you’ll not even get a lump of politically incorrect coal in your Obama approved Stocking.

OBAMACARE UPDATE

As I have said before, look up adverse selection sometime, if you understand that, you know why ObamaCare is going to screw, even the poor into the ground.

As the Times reports, chiropractor lobbyists were “out in force” to have their service “included in every state’s package of essential health benefits.” And acupuncture will be mandated in at least four states.

Other coverage mandates that various states have announced they plan to require under ObamaCare include weight-loss surgery and infertility treatment. These are on top of the federal mandates the Obama administration has already announced, including things like “free” preventive service and contraception coverage.

Since health care dollars don’t fall from trees, each of those mandates will end up adding to the cost of insurance. Worse, these mandates will only grow over time.

State governments know this, since they have a long and sordid history of giving in to lobbyist pressure and imposing increasing coverage mandates on state-regulated insurance plans.

States currently impose 2,262 benefit mandates, up from 2,156 the year before, according to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance. There were just 850 mandates in 1992, when CAHI first started tracking them.

Among the more ridiculous are requirements that insurance cover breast implant removal, circumcision, wigs for chemotherapy patients, smoking-cessation service and varicose vein removal.

CAHI figures state mandates add 10% to 50% to the cost of insurance. A report from the Maryland Health Care Commission figures that around 20% of premiums in that state are the result of its 45 benefit mandates.

In addition to preventive-care rules, ObamaCare bans lifetime limits on coverage and puts caps on out-of-pocket costs, each of which will drive up premiums. Its requirement that insurers cover “children” up to 26 years old has already added as much as 3% to premiums, according to Towers Watson.

Along with mandated benefits, ObamaCare declares war on high-deductible health plans proved to hold costs down.

Individual plans won’t be allowed to have a deductible higher than $2,000. This rule will mean that 1-in-7 workers will be forced to take a lower deductible, then pay higher insurance costs as a result.

When Nebraska tried to make a high-deductible plan its benchmark plan under ObamaCare, the administration turned the state down, saying it didn’t meet the law’s requirements.

Even ObamaCare backers admit its benefit mandates — along with insurance market “reforms” — will add significantly to the cost of coverage. Jonathan Gruber, who helped design ObamaCare, studied the law’s effects on individual insurance policies in several states and concluded it will add 30% to those premiums.

Long ago, Obama promised that his medical overhaul would focus entirely on bringing the cost of insurance down.

But the law he’s busy implementing will have the exact opposite effect.

And we’re all going to pay the price. (IBD)

But the dependent class just has to be kept fat, DUMB, and happy (defined as- envious and willfully dumb) and they then won’t bother to notice the same government they think is so great  is robbing them blind.
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Food For The Sowell Chapter 2

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

President Obama today issued a stern warning to Republicans in Congress threatening to use the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip in deficit negotiations, saying “it is not a game that I will play.”

“I want to send a very clear message to people here: We are not going to play that game next year. If Congress in any way suggests that they’re going to tie negotiations to debt ceiling votes and take us to the brink of default once again as part of a budget negotiation, which, by the way, we have never done in our history until we did it last year, I will not play that game,” Obama told some of the nation’s top CEOs at the Business Roundtable in Washington. “We’ve got to break that habit before it starts.” (ABC)

Detroit wants expects a bailout.

City Council member JoAnn Watson said Tuesday the citizens support of Obama in last month’s election was enough reason for the president to bailout the struggling the city.

“Our people in an overwhelming way supported the re-election of this president and there ought to be a quid pro quo and you ought to exercise leadership on that,” said Watson. “Of course, not just that, but why not?”

Oh goodness.

“After the election of Jimmy Carter, the honorable Coleman Alexander Young, he went to Washington, D.C. and came home with some bacon,” said Watson. “That’s what you do.” (WP)

Detroit is $1.6 Trillion in debt. Detroit has always been a liberal haven, it’s ruin by Unions mostly (yes that was a Freudian slip :)). But this is nakedly, unashamed liberal narcissism.

Bribe them, and they will come (to vote for you) now they want their Ton of bacon! And they want it now!!!!

So they can spread it to all the little bacon-nippers they’ve bribed.

The Circle of Liberal life!

Thomas Sowell: One of the big advantages that President Obama has, as he plays “chicken” with the Congressional Republicans along the “fiscal cliff,” is that Obama is a master of the plausible lie, which will never be exposed by the mainstream media– nor, apparently, by the Republicans.

A key lie that has been repeated over and over, largely unanswered, is that President Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich” cost the government so much lost tax revenue that this added to the budget deficit– so that the government cannot afford to allow the cost of letting the Bush tax rates continue for “the rich.”

Joseph Goebbels: 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.”

And with a  24/7/365 Ministry of Truth it is a LOT easier to do.

It sounds very plausible, and constant repetition without a challenge may well be enough to convince the voting public that, if the Republican-controlled House of Representatives does not go along with Barack Obama’s demands for more spending and higher tax rates on the top 2 percent, it just shows that they care more for “the rich” than for the other 98 percent.

What is remarkable is how easy it is to show how completely false Obama’s argument is. That also makes it completely inexplicable why the Republicans have not done so.

The official statistics which show plainly how wrong Barack Obama is can be found in his own “Economic Report of the President” for 2012, on page 411. You can look it up.

You may be able to find a copy of the “Economic Report of the President” for 2012 at your local public library. Or you can buy a hard copy from the Government Printing Office or download an electronic version from the Internet.

For those who find that “a picture is worth a thousand words,” they need only see the graphs published in the November 30th issue of Investor’s Business Daily.

http://www.nber.org/erp/ERP_2012_Complete.pdf

IBD: Turn to Pages 411-413 of his 2012 Economic Report of the President, published by the Council of Economic Advisers. They show that “the math,” as Obama is wont to say, in fact does add up for tax cuts.

After President Bush in late May 2003 signed the largest tax cut since President Reagan — including dropping the top marginal rate to 35% from 39.6% — government receipts from individual income taxes rose from $793.7 billion to a peak of $1.16 trillion in 2007, when the mortgage crisis began, a 47% jump.

Stronger economic growth expanded the tax base and brought in so much revenue that Bush more than halved the deficit over that period. The budget gap plunged to $160.7 billion from $377.6 billion, according to the president’s report.

Perhaps the most impressive statistic appears on Page 412, one that undercuts Obama’s core argument against continuing the Bush tax cuts.

The post-tax-cut surge in economic growth and tax revenues helped drive down the deficit from 3.5% of gross domestic product in 2004 to 2.6% in 2005, to 1.9% in 2006 and to a manageable 1.2% in 2007.

Based on Bush fiscal policies, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected budget deficits of 0.7% to 1.5% of GDP for the years 2008 through 2011. The CBO even predicted surpluses for the subsequent years through 2018.

What derailed the forecast was the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008.

This financial anomaly threw the economy into a deep recession, beginning in December 2007, and forced a collapse in federal tax revenues.

As a result, the deficit-to-GDP ratio shot up to 10% in 2009 and has remained around that level, thanks to record Obama spending.

(The recession technically ended in June 2009.)

Obama’s economic report shows that the average deficit-to-GDP ratio during the entire Bush administration — 2001 to 2009 — was 2%, which is well below the 50-year average of 3%.

During the Obama years, in contrast, the same deficit ratio has averaged 9.1%.

The Bush tax cuts did not “cost” the Treasury revenues. Nor did they increase income inequality.

When fully implemented, they increased the portion of the income tax burden that fell on the wealthiest Americans.

The top 1% of taxpayers went from paying 38.4% of overall taxes to 39.1%, while the bottom 50% saw their share drop from 3.4% to 3.1%.

And as a percentage of the economy, deficits shrank to historically low levels.

Record red ink flowed much later as the housing market toppled and government spending shot up.

New spending on welfare programs and Obama’s $1.9 trillion national health care entitlement threaten only to compound the budget crisis.

Yet he proposes backloading any promised spending controls while front-loading “revenue increases” from tax hikes. (IBD)

What both the statistical tables in the “Economic Report of the President” and the graphs in Investor’s Business Daily show is that (1) tax revenues went up– not down– after tax rates were cut during the Bush administration, and (2) the budget deficit declined, year after year, after the cut in tax rates that have been blamed by Obama for increasing the deficit.

Indeed, the New York Times reported in 2006: “An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year.”

While the New York Times may not have expected this, there is nothing unprecedented about lower tax rates leading to higher tax revenues, despite automatic assumptions by many in the media and elsewhere that tax rates and tax revenues automatically move in the same direction. They do not.

The Congressional Budget Office has been embarrassed repeatedly by making projections based on the assumption that tax revenues and tax rates move in the same direction.

This has happened as recently as the George W. Bush administration and as far back as the Reagan administration. Moreover, tax revenues went up when tax rates went down, as far back as the Coolidge administration, before there was a Congressional Budget Office to make false predictions.

The bottom line is that Barack Obama’s blaming increased budget deficits on the Bush tax cuts is demonstrably false. What caused the decreasing budget deficits after the Bush tax cuts to suddenly reverse and start increasing was the mortgage crisis. The deficit increased in 2008, followed by a huge increase in 2009.

So it is sheer hogwash that “tax cuts for the rich” caused the government to lose tax revenues. The government gained tax revenues, not lost them. Moreover, “the rich” paid a larger amount of taxes, and a larger share of all taxes, after the tax rates were cut.

That is because people change their economic behavior when tax rates are changed, contrary to what the Congressional Budget Office and others seem to assume, and this can stimulate the economy more than a government “stimulus” has done under either Bush or Obama.

Yet there is no need to assume that Barack Obama is mistaken about the way to get the economy out of the doldrums. His top priority has always been increasing the size and scope of government. If that means sacrificing the economy or the truth, that is no deterrent to Obama. That is why he is willing to play chicken with Republicans along the fiscal cliff.

The end justify the means.  It’s only “fair” 🙂

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

 

%d bloggers like this: