Playing Politics

Obama’s speech yesterday was cheap political leveraging at its finest. The Wall Street Journal calls it “dishonest even by modern political standards.”

The Trashing of Christine O’Donnell

I listened to the debate yesterday between Christine O’Donnell and Chris Coons after hearing the AP spin story and was completely unsurprised at how they took a section of the debate, out of context, and spun it for Democrat political gain. It was obvious that she was debating the concept of separation of church and state while Coons and his cohort moderators were trying to set her up. The concept of separation of church and state as applied today is not in line with the intent of the Founding Fathers. Their intent, like it or not, was to protect the church from the state. Riddle me this? Why exactly did it it take until the 20th century and a progressive dominated Supreme Court for separation of church and state, as we are indoctrinated with today, to be gleaned from the Constitution? I guess the Founding Fathers had no idea what they really meant; neither did the courts of the 19th and early part of the 20th century. Hmmm. Maybe it’s not really about law, but about worldview? Give that kid a light bulb.

The trashing of Christine is nothing new. We’ve seen it over and over — Sarah Palin being a blatant, recent example. Apparently nothing scares the bejezus out of libs like conservative ladies who have the fortitude to actually stand for their beliefs. The lib media jumped into high gear yesterday with their spin on this debate. The pompous rhetoric and posturing was almost silly, but then, these are the same people who have anointed Meghan McCain as their new media darling.

O’Donnell has an uphill fight, but she can win. She not only has to campaign against Coons and the establishment media she also has had to labor under the lack of support from the establishment crowd. Carl Rove, the architect, (the guy who pushed the policies that lead to the gutting of the GOP in the last two Congressional elections) did her a major disservice with his childish rants after Christine beat Mike Castle. It was completely classless and destructive to, not only her chances, but the legitimate shot the GOP has to take this seat in Delaware. It is tough enough running as a conservative since you have to run against the Democrat candidate AND the the establishment media.

What are the parameters for how you choose who to vote for? Mine are pretty simple. I vote based on the positions that the candidate espouses. That’s pretty much it. I can’t vote in Delaware, but if could I’d by voting for Christine O’Donnell. I have to admit that beyond the issue of the leftist positions that Coons espouses, there is something in me that rises up against the same dirty tactics that are used over and over against conservatives. O’Donnell has them scared, otherwise they would have never come after her this hard. Go get em Christy. I’m pulling for you.

Paul Ryan schools Chris Matthews

A bombastic simpleton like Chris Matthews should never argue with a man with facts. I love Joe Crowley’s comment that “in my district there are very few people who make more than that” — I mean that’s just classic. It’s all fun and games and class envy until the guy who owns the heating and air company you work for cuts your job because of higher taxes. What a great video. The only way Matthews and Crowley could take on Ryan would be to not let him talk.

Over Tax Them and They Will Go Home

A friend of mine sent me the following in an email. It’s attributed to a University of Georgia professor. It does a good job of illustrating some of the many problems with liberal/progressive tax policies.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.’

Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from every body’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man.

“I only saved a dollar, too.. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I”!

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two?”

“The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man (the richest) didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money
between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they
might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics University of Georgia

Obama’s Magical Tax Program

Barack Obama has loudly trumpeted his plan to cut taxes on 95% of Americans.  I’m for tax cuts as much as the next guy but here are some interesting stats from the IRS–

The top 1% of earners pay 39% of gross tax revenue.

The top 5% pay 60%.

The top 10% pay 70%

The top 25% pay 86%

The top 50% pay 97%.

Everybody else pays 3%.

The top 5% pay 60% already and Obama wants to raise their taxes.  Obama also wants to get after mean and nasty corporations and get them to pay their fair share.  Hammer businesses and see what happens.  You’ll have even more Americans not paying taxes because they won’t have jobs.  This mentality that somehow punishing “big business” helps the little people is ridiculous.  Every extra dollar that is squeezed out of your company to pay more taxes is a dollar that can never go to give you a raise or fund another position or even to keep your position intact.  What happens when the local steel mill or auto plant closes down because of reckless tax policies?  And yet the same people who are so often victimized by the closing of a plant will vote democrat because the dems are for the little guy.

Why do local and state governments work so hard and offer tax breaks to bring a business to town?  It is in everyone’s best interest to have a nation where people have jobs and are self- sufficient as opposed to a nation that lives on the government dole.  I’ve never seen anyone get rich because they lived on government money.

The last democrat that sat in the oval office also promised to cut taxes on the middle class during his campaign but somehow within a month of taking office he announced a tax hike.  Regardless of what Obama says, what does his history say?  Obama’s history in the Illinois State Legislature is a picture of a man who is fond of taxes of all shapes and sizes.  He voted against extending the Bush tax cuts and seems to love punitive taxes on business.

Heard of wealth redistribution?  What if the tax cut you get that is offset by the taxes on your company ends up costing you your job?