How should the U.S. government attack the deficit?

CBS News Graphic

The American people are clear in their answer . . . reduce spending, don't raise taxes.  That's according to CBS News.  Check out the story here.  Is anyone at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC listening?

Thankfully, I live on the west side of the Mississippi

The Illinois House of Representatives voted today to raise the state's personal income tax from 3% to 5%.  (Link to story here.)

Missouri needs to take a Wisconsin-like approach to this.  Wisconsin's governor, Scott Walker (shown here), a Republican, has taken notice of the huge tax increase in a state that borders his - as it does Missouri (for anyone in Jefferson City who might not realize that) - and proposed tax cuts to entice business into his state.  (Link to story here.)

The time is now to cut Missouri's personal and business tax rates, or eliminate them entirely.  And let the boom begin.

Kudos to D.C. . . . deja vu edition . . . sort of

It appears that the GOP victories in November have given Barack Obama a new perspective.  Tonight, an agreement has been reached to extend the Bush tax cuts.  (Link to story here.)  This was, by far, the most important thing on the agenda for the lame duck Congress.  I suppose, technically, it is still on their agenda but I can't really see the Congressional Dems blocking their president's compromise.  Failure to extend the tax cuts (a.k.a. a massive tax increase) would be a massive blow to the American economy.  Washington, on this one, isn't failing.  Thankfully.

Surprisingly, Obama's also seen the wisdom of cutting taxes.  Apparently included in the deal is a cut of 2% from the Social Security payroll tax . . . from 6.2% to 4.2%.  Wow.  FICA's going to be taking less of our money.  I can get behind that idea.

Now, the deal far from perfect.  The Bush tax cuts are only being extended 2 years - so we'll have this fight again in the lame duck session of the 2012 Congress.  And, the payroll tax cut is temporary too.

There are extensions of some tax credit programs too.  I don't know enough about the specifics of those to comment (sorry, I just don't have the time).

But long-term unemployment benefits were extended for an additional 13 months as well.  How working American taxpayers can continue to pay Americans who are not working for 99 weeks?  That's just four weeks short of TWO YEARS folks . . . TWO YEARS!  There's no money - but we're paying people to sit at home and watch Oprah or Days of Our Lives.

Enough, eventually, has to be enough.

But allow the criticism to wait for a little while.  Take the deal and smile.  Enjoy the boost in your paycheck.  Spend it.  And let's create an actual recovery.

Election Reflections . . . belated edition

Well, it has become clear for all to see - including me - that anyone depending on a regular blog fix should look elsewhere.  However, if you want to read something good once in a while, stay tuned.  I promise not to go away (Lord willing and the creek don't rise) without telling you all that I'm gone.

So here we go, belatedly, with SLC's reflections on the November elections.  I haven't been so happy with an election result since 1994.  This was, of course, an even bigger victory.  (Though I must admit that my mood was even better in 1994 for two reasons . . . that one came as more of a surprise but, more importantly, it was because I heard the results on CNN while on vacation in Spain.)

In January, Republicans will take a decisive majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and a significant minority in the Senate.  In the Missouri General Assembly, the GOP has an overwhelming numbers advantage.

It is time to lay the the groundwork both in our state and nationally but anyone who wants real change needs to take a look at the Governor's Mansion in Jefferson City and the White House.  There are still significant stumbling blocks in the persons of Jay Nixon and Barack Obama.  Keep 2012 in your sights.

In the meantime, Roy Blunt and the other Republicans given our trust and sent to Washington have to draw a line on spending.  The government must realize that we're broke and start cutting the budget in real ways.  It won't be easy but it must be done.  If the Democrats won't go along, that's their choice.  Let them defend a government shutdown caused by their insistence on borrowing more money and adding it to our children's and grandchildren's tab, or printing it and devaluing the dollar.

Republicans in Washington must also target Obamacare.  All of it.  Repeal the monstrosity.  Only then will we be in a position to negotiate substantial but incremental, reasoned, and conservative changes to America's healthcare system.  Changes that would improve the private system rather than scrap it entirely  and replace it with a Socialist single-payer government behemoth.  A repeal of Obamacare should be the first one passed by the new House.  And its repeal should be tacked onto other bills sent to the president's desk.  Again . . . and again . . . and again.  Let Obama be responsible for veto after veto if he must.

The Jeff City Republicans have a chance to make a real difference too.  I heard Arthur Laffer on KMOX a while back, talking about a proposal to repeal Missouri's income tax in favor of a new, and surprisingly low, sales tax (coupled with refunds to cover the tax on purchase of necessities).  Slashing income taxes would likely draw business like pigs on . . . well, you know.

And, I read in Sunday's St. Louis Post-Dispatch about another pro-Missouri jobs measure that will be pushed by GOP in the General Assembly . . . the Right to Work.  Simply put, passing a Right to Work bill would prevent labor unions from automatically deducting or taking (some might say stealing) money from non-members paychecks and workplaces covered by union contracts.  It sure seems like a good idea to me.

So, here's to the GOP for the next two years and beyond.  Push the agenda to save America and build Missouri.  If you can't get everything you want, get what you can.  But don't settle.  2012 is not too far away.

Up, Up, and Away . . . taxes that is

In what should come as a shock to no one, but may actually shock some of you "moderates" and "independents" who fell under the spell of Obamamania in 2008 and created the current one-party federal government in Washington, the Democrats are raising taxes on "almost everyone."  Yes, indeed.  I'm not kidding.  If Congress doesn't pass a bill to keep taxes at their current levels by the end of 2010 yet the Democrats who possess overwhelming majorities (for now) in both houses of Congress have "abandoned plans to vote before Election Day" on the issue.  (Link to story here.)

That leaves your wallet in the hands of a lame duck session that will still be led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.  In other words, don't hold your breath.

Another reason to keep this blog anonymous . . .

Link here.

Your Taxes: Their Spending

Why there are Democrats . . . and why those of you who pay income tax are going to pay more and more and more

I don't often make mistakes and even more rarely admit one but     . . . 

For much of my adult life, I've been convinced that if the issue of abortion, magically or by the grace of God, ceased to exist, so would the Democrat Party in the United States.  It is their rallying cry.  It is the brush with which they paint conservatives as extreme Bible-thumping misogynists.  But I've been wrong.

Democrats also exist because they take money from you and me and give it to their voters. They redistribute wealth from one group of people to another and, in that way, buy power with money that isn't even theirs to begin with.

What convinced me?  This story from Stephen Ohlemacher at the Associated Press.  In it, Ohlemacher reports that nearly half - 47% of all American households will pay NOTHING in federal income taxes this year.  Nothing!  We have "a tax system that exempt almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education."

And, get this, a full 40% of American households "make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes.  For those people, the government sends them a payment."  This is highway robbery on a massive, nationwide scale.

Did you realize that if your in the 53% that actually pays taxes in this country that the government is taking some of your money and handing it directly to 40% of your neighbors?

So where does all the money the government spends come from?  Well, the government either borrows it or it comes from the 70% of all tax revenue that comes from the top 10% of earners nationwide.  

70% comes from 10% while NOTHING comes from 47% . . . and most of that 47% actually get a check in the mail from the rest of us marked "courtesy of your friends in Washington, D.C."

So why does this breathe life into the Democrats?  Simple.  The Democrats stand for more government, more programs, more handouts.  And isn't it easy to support a party that wants more government, more programs, and more handouts, if you're benefiting but don't have to pay?

The Democrats stand for higher taxes . . . but only on the so-called wealthy.  Right now, the "wealthy" constitutes 53% of us - the taxpayers.

If we don't stand up to them now, when we're still a slight majority, what power could the Democrats wield if their 47% natural base of non-taxpaying Americans became a slight majority?  In a democracy, how much could 51% of the citizens take from 49%?

The answer, as anyone reading this far should know, is scary!

If the federal income tax is continued - and not replaced with a different funding mechanism entirely - a flat tax rate with minimal deductions is the way to go.  Every American who earns an income should be entitled to one standard deduction, at or near a true poverty line, the minimal amount of money that it would take to feed, house, and clothe oneself and his or her dependents, then on a certain percentage of every dollar earned after that should be taxed.  I'd have to check many more numbers and do math beyond my skill-set to choose the appropriate percentage but if everyone paid the same percentage, the rich would still pay more (since they earn more) but those earning less would still have a personal stake in tax policy.  

But, guess what, that's not likely to happen.  Why not?  Too many people like the system just the way it is.  The Democrats couldn't stand to give up the power to take money from you to buy votes from their constituencies.  Never.

The Democrats have to go folks.  The message could not be clearer.  Now is the time.  This is the year.  Clean out Congress in November.  Your wallet and your country depend on it.

(By the way, lest you believe that I'm as cocky as Michael "Big Mike" Lynche on American Idol, whose chestnuts were pulled from the fire by the judges tonight - and who by all appearances felt that he, by his very being and greatness, was entitled to their gift of a second chance, the introductory paragraph at the beginning of this post was done for effect . . . mostly.)

Hey diddle, diddle

The British Department of Energy and Climate Change (yes, they have one) proposed an overly sensational advertising campaign that has been rejected by the British Advertising Standards Authority (yes, they have one of those too).  The campaign featured posters with "adapted" two nursery rhymes and illustrations making "exaggerated claims about the threat to Britain from global warming."  (Link to story here.)

Here's one "adapted" nursery rhyme sure that should be included in any future advertising campaign about the "threat" of "global warming" . . . 

Hey diddle, diddle,

The cat and the fiddle,

The government caught in a lie.

The people all laughed when they realized the hoax,

Until taxes still went sky high.  

How to increase tourism to America? Tax the tourists!

Foreign tourism is down.  According to the U.S. Travel Association, the country welcomed 2.4 million fewer overseas visitors last year" than a decade ago.  (Link here.)  In response, President Obama singed a bill into law that creates a public-private partnership to promote U.S. tourism.  (Link to story here.)

Give credit where credit is due . . . Obama isn't using tax dollars to pay for this and promotion of tourism should result in a net economic benefit to the country.

But where is the public portion of the partnership's funds coming from?  A new tax, of course.  A $10.00 per head tax on those very same foreign travelers this campaign is trying to attract.

Brilliant.  Just brilliant.  

Here's the text of the first ad . . . "We're out of money so come to America and give us yours.  Thanks."

Obama's new take on the national debt? Or just words? Or are higher taxes on the way?

Barack Obama was interviewed by Fox News yesterday and said . . .

"It is important to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery [suppress guffaw], that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession."  (Link to Reuters story here.)

First of all, it's some "recovery" out there, isn't it!  Up is down.  Left is right.  Whatever you say Mr. President.

Second, aren't we already at the point where people have lost confidence in the U.S. economy?

But, the most important thing contained in this statement is, of course, Obama's recognition of the truth about government borrowing more and more money . . . it is a bad idea.  Let's watch and see if his behavior will match words.

I suspect not.  Most likely, this is just more of the same.  Obama is talking simply to hear himself talk.  Saying whatever he thinks that his audience of the day (note that this was a Fox News interview) wants to hear.  In reality, he is still a big government liberal who has never seen a "problem" that government spending couldn't solve.

There is, of course, one other possibility . . . Obama could actually mean what he says.  But when most folks think that cutting spending would be the best way to stop adding to the national debt, Obama could be signaling a tax increase instead.  

Shocker: Obama wants tax on soda

In a complete surprise, Barack Obama is open to a new tax on consumption of soda and other sugary drinks. (Link to story here.)

Actually, of course, it is no surprise at all. None of us should be surprised that a liberal Democrat stands ready and willing to raise your taxes. The fact that doing so could take a swipe at your freedom to drink what you want to drink is an added bonus. Dealing a blow to American businesses, like Coca-Cola and Pepsico . . . well, that's icing on the cake.

Democrats like to yell and scream about keeping government "out of the bedroom." How about keeping it out of our refrigerators!

U.N. Taxation = Global Government . . . Just Say No!

Some friends have called me naive because I've discounted the conspiracy theories claiming that this policy or that policy is a purposeful step by some shady international cabal toward their ultimate goal of a single world government.  But today even I am worried about national sovereignty . . .

The United Nations Environment Program ("UNEP") will be presenting a report to world leaders in London on April 2 calling for a $750 billion "Global Green New Deal."  (Link to story here.)  The program itself, though massive in scale, is just more of the typical environmentalist gibberish about energy efficient buildings, renewable energy, and the like.  

But the scary part is the suggestion by UNEP's Executive Director that the U.N. levy a tax on oil to pay for the program.  

An international organization with the power to levy taxes on citizens of "independent" nations?  Is one-world government really that far away?

The sovereign nations of the world must draw the line . . . just say no to U.N. taxes.

Obama's $2,000,000,000,000 tax increase

Liberal Democrats, including our president, are so blinded by environmental extremism that they are willing to destroy American industry and our economy along with it.  

How?  By implementing a "cap-and-trade" plan that sets "caps" on carbon emissions and allows companies to buy (apparently from the government) and "trade" allowances for additional emissions.  The Obama administration estimates that this will cost industry "close to $2 trillion" over eight years.  That's "nearly three times the White House's initial estimate."  (Link to Washington Times story here.)

Brilliant, don't you think, to add $2 trillion in costs to industry at a time when the economy is already slow and jobs harder to come by?

And, oh yeah, who will pay that $2 trillion?  You, me, and everybody who buys a product - if you'll be able to find any - that is made in the United States.  In the words of a prominent Republican staffer . . . "Since this energy tax won't affect manufacturers in Mexico, India and China, it will do nothing but drive American jobs overseas."

All this in the name of saving the planet from non-existent global warming.

Anybody who voted for Obama having buyer's remorse yet?  Or, is the better question . . . is anybody not?

Missouri Economic Stimulus may be in the works . . . thanks to Illinois

The ouster of Rod Blagojevich from the Illinois governor's office may have big benefits for Missouri (and Indiana and every other state bordering Illinois).  How?  His replacement, fellow Democrat Pat Quinn plans a 50% income tax increase on Illinois families making over $56,000 per year.  (Link to story here.)

If the Illinois legislature is dumb enough to go along with the plan, it won't take long for businesses and residents to flee the state.

As a Missourian, I have to say, "Thanks Pat!  Good luck!"

Why not overwithhold?

Lots of Americans, me included, enjoy getting those tax refund checks from the government every spring.  But this story from California points out a danger . . . what happens if the government spends the money that you overwithhold (i.e. lend it interest-free) and can't pay you back?

Leave our drinks alone!

Facing a budget deficit, New York governor David Patterson, a Democrat, is reaching out to do what Democrats tend to do . . . raising taxes.  In addition to increasing taxes on hospitals and on insurance policies, Patterson is proposing a "fat tax" on non-diet soda.  (Link to story here.)

Yes, that's right, Pepsi and Coke will now join cigarettes and alcohol as "sins" ripe for their own special tax.  What's next?  Candy?  Cookies?  Hamburgers?  Why not, after all, couldn't more revenue be raised by taxing anything and everything fattening?

The number one reason, of course, for the fat tax in New York is to take more money from the people who earned it to allow the government to spend it.  But the reason given is to protect the public health by forcing a healthier lifestyle.  Hogwash!

The government needs to stop using the tax code in an effort to dictate citizens' behavior.

Get out of our lives and our kitchens and let us eat and drink what we what to eat and drink.  Governor Patterson (and your ilk) . . . leave us alone!

Just adding another link here to show you how out-of-control Gov. Patterson's tax proposals are.  12/16/08.  SLC.

"Obama Plans Largest Building Program Since 1950s"

That was the Bloomberg Press headline for a story yesterday that covered President-elect Barack Obama's speech indicating that he plans to "make the 'single largest new investment' in roads, bridges and public buildings since the Eisenhower Administration."

Question:  Where's the money to pay for it going to come from?

Obama's plan to buy votes from seniors falls flat

I've not met many tax cuts that I didn't like - but I have to point out Barack Obama's blatant attempt to buy the votes of senior citizens . . . even though that attempt is a dud.

In an Associated Press story, Andrew Taylor analyzes Barack Obama's plan to exempt seniors earning less than $50,000 a year from paying any federal income tax.  Tax experts, think tanks, and even the AARP are critical of the plan.  This tax break would, according to AARP, "only partly offset additional taxes that Obama would impose on older adults through higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains."

According to the experts, most of the seniors who could use some financial help are already paying no income tax - so this proposal wouldn't help them.  But lots of retirees with "substantial assets" who don't earn over $50,000 because they don't need that much income anymore would get the largess.

But "cutting" taxes for seniors sounds good in a sound bite.  And who looks at details anymore?  Obama and the Democrats are hoping that nobody will realize that the money that he wants to put in their front pockets is coming out of their own back pockets - likely with a "small" transaction fee kept in Washington.

Lonely Franken a typical Democrat . . . promises everything - but has no idea the cost

Comedian Al Franken is a Democrat running for the U.S. Senate in Minnesota.  (I daresay this is one candidate less qualified for the office he's seeking than our friend Brock Olivo was for Congress.)  His campaign hit Drudge Report today because he had a glorious campaign stop where one - yes one - person showed up to hear him speak in a roundtable on veterans' issues.

That makes the story funny in a laugh-at-Al Franken sort of way.  

But the story tells a more valuable lesson about Democrats (and all too many Republicans) running for office.  They'll promise anybody anything for a vote but have no idea how to implement it.

The story Drudge linked is from the St. Cloud Times (full story here) and reports:  "Franken said he would work to guarantee every veteran health care for life by making full VA health care funding an untouchable entitlement in the budget, increasing funding for mental health treatment for veterans, and increasing pay and benefits for military personnel and families."  But, now here's the good part, "he said he did not know how much the program would cost, or how he would pay for it."

Typical liberalism . . . promise everything to everyone with no concept of the cost.  I think Franken is being just a bit dishonest in his ignorance, though.  I think he knows how he'd pay for this . . . more taxes from taken from you and me.  After all, he is a liberal Democrat and to them the American people are bottomless pit of revenue.  And it really is the government's money anyway.

Always be on the lookout for promises of more federal money and more federal programs - the money has to come from somewhere.