The outcome of the mid-term election, in which the Republicans won control of the House of Representatives, and the Democrats retained control of the Senate, means that Congress will not be able to conduct meaningful business for the next two years. Thank God!
Whenever there is gridlock in Congress, the American people are well-served. Last night I switched television channels frequently to see how the news media treated this emerging change in government. For the most part, the pundits agreed with my conclusion that little would be accomplished in Congress for the next two years, but most did not think that was a good thing. Comments like, "the American people want the government to take care of the business of the people," made me wince. That is why we are IN such a sorry mess: Congress has been conducting business, spending more money, expanding its power over the American people, and generally fucking up everything they address.
As for the message the people sent in the vote last night, it was not that they like Republicans; rather, it was that they want jobs and they don't want government-run health care. Republicans are reading into the result that people want limited federal intrusion into their lives, so that's now the party mantra--not that they believe it or will practice it, given their track record. But in the event, they're wrong; Americans will accept big government if they have jobs and can live fairly well economically. Does anyone think that the Republicans would have won last night if the state of the economy had been good?
So, given that Americans are not as discriminating about the size and power of the federal government as Republicans think, and are not as accepting of socialist health care and higher taxes as the Democrats think, the best we Libertarians can hope for is that Americans keep voting for split government so that neither party gets total control and gets what they want. That's a sorry state of affairs, but we'll take it for now.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Whither the Election?
The election is upon us. Tuesday, about 50% to 55% of those eligible to vote, plus some dead citizens, some non-citizens and others totally ineligible to vote, will head to the polls and cast their votes to be tallied with the votes of those (dead and alive, and otherwise eligible and ineligible) who already have cast votes in the early voting periods, and those who voted by absentee ballot.
The probable outcome: The Republicans will not do as well as they expect, and the Democrats will not do as poorly as they fear.
There are several reasons for this. One is that the news media have beat it into our heads that the Republicans are going to accomplish a sweep this election, so many Republicans who might have voted will not show up at the polls. Conversely, the Democrats will have instilled enough fear in their ranks that they can expect a more vigorous turnout than predicted.
Another reason is that the Democratic Party in particular is quite adept at voter fraud—it will do whatever possible to prevent absentee votes or to conveniently “lose” absentee ballots, on the assumption that the majority will be military personnel who tend to vote Republican; and we have heard numerous reports of people voting straight Republican tickets, only to have the voting machine record the vote for Democrats, a phenomenon explained away by elections commissioners (always Democrats) as “machine malfunctions that of course have been corrected,” who always follow that by claiming that the Republicans are guilty of “voter suppression” (and to be sure, that probably is true).
But the main reason is this: Americans are divided into three main political categories: Liberal (Democratic Party) and Conservative (Republican Party) compete in elections for the votes of a third group: independent Americans, meaning those the pollsters cannot ascribe to one of the other two groups. It is a fluid group generally comprising those who are honestly open-minded about which candidate for whom they’ll vote, those who have become disillusioned with the candidate or party for whom they last voted, those who don’t like either of the two major parties, and those who simply are ignorant of the candidates or issues attending a particular election, but who insist on voting anyway.
There are many more Democrats than Republicans, so elections are decided by the independents. Only if a large number of them vote Republican can Republicans win. In this particular election, a lot of independents who in 2008 voted for Obama are disillusioned with him; however, that doesn’t necessarily mean they will vote Republican. Some will, of course, and others just will not vote at all. But the bottom line is that if a significant number of those independents who voted Democratic in 2008 do so again in 2010, the Democrats will not fare as poorly as the media has predicted, especially if even a few Republicans are complacent and fail to vote.
My prediction is that Republicans will gain 60 seats in the House of Representatives to win control, but only 8 Senate seats, not enough to win control of that body.
That will be a good outcome. With Republicans controlling the House, but Democrats controlling the Senate, and a Democratic president who will wield a veto over legislation, the Congress will be able to do little for the next two years. When the Congress is deadlocked, Americans are safer, if only for a little while.
The probable outcome: The Republicans will not do as well as they expect, and the Democrats will not do as poorly as they fear.
There are several reasons for this. One is that the news media have beat it into our heads that the Republicans are going to accomplish a sweep this election, so many Republicans who might have voted will not show up at the polls. Conversely, the Democrats will have instilled enough fear in their ranks that they can expect a more vigorous turnout than predicted.
Another reason is that the Democratic Party in particular is quite adept at voter fraud—it will do whatever possible to prevent absentee votes or to conveniently “lose” absentee ballots, on the assumption that the majority will be military personnel who tend to vote Republican; and we have heard numerous reports of people voting straight Republican tickets, only to have the voting machine record the vote for Democrats, a phenomenon explained away by elections commissioners (always Democrats) as “machine malfunctions that of course have been corrected,” who always follow that by claiming that the Republicans are guilty of “voter suppression” (and to be sure, that probably is true).
But the main reason is this: Americans are divided into three main political categories: Liberal (Democratic Party) and Conservative (Republican Party) compete in elections for the votes of a third group: independent Americans, meaning those the pollsters cannot ascribe to one of the other two groups. It is a fluid group generally comprising those who are honestly open-minded about which candidate for whom they’ll vote, those who have become disillusioned with the candidate or party for whom they last voted, those who don’t like either of the two major parties, and those who simply are ignorant of the candidates or issues attending a particular election, but who insist on voting anyway.
There are many more Democrats than Republicans, so elections are decided by the independents. Only if a large number of them vote Republican can Republicans win. In this particular election, a lot of independents who in 2008 voted for Obama are disillusioned with him; however, that doesn’t necessarily mean they will vote Republican. Some will, of course, and others just will not vote at all. But the bottom line is that if a significant number of those independents who voted Democratic in 2008 do so again in 2010, the Democrats will not fare as poorly as the media has predicted, especially if even a few Republicans are complacent and fail to vote.
My prediction is that Republicans will gain 60 seats in the House of Representatives to win control, but only 8 Senate seats, not enough to win control of that body.
That will be a good outcome. With Republicans controlling the House, but Democrats controlling the Senate, and a Democratic president who will wield a veto over legislation, the Congress will be able to do little for the next two years. When the Congress is deadlocked, Americans are safer, if only for a little while.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Prescription for (Real) Hope and Change
From continuation of the war in Afghanistan, to passage of a healthcare bill that is the first step toward socialized medicine; and from passage of a wasteful stimulus bill that does nothing to increase jobs but does everything to increase the national debt, to an unparalleled expansion of the national government and a corresponding limitation of the power of the states and of the people, the Congress and the Obama administration have run amok and pissed off the American people. At this writing, Republicans seemed poised to regain a majority in the House of Representatives, and possibly (but not likely) to regain a majority in the Senate. As of 2010, we can do nothing about Barack Obama.
But will Republican control of Congress (and, looking to 2012, a Republican in the White House) do anything to stop the rampant expansion of federal power and the loss of Americans’ liberties? Judging from the actions of Congress and the president during the previous administration, an unqualified “no” is the answer to that question.
Stopping the erosion of freedom and liberty will come only from more fundamental change. Here is my prescription for a healthy America:
1. Amend the Constitution to limit federal spending to a set percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) except in pre-defined emergencies. [This is necessary if the government is to operate within a realistic budget.]
2. Amend the Constitution to provide for, upon the concurrence of three-fourths of the state legislatures, a veto by the states of Congressional spending in excess of the set percentage of GDP. [This is a necessary check on Congress’s ability to suspend its rules and ignore the Constitution.]
3. Amend the Constitution to prohibit unfunded federal mandates to the states. [This is necessary for the states to operate within their budgets and not be blindsided by Congressional whim.]
4. Amend the Constitution to mandate a presidential line-item veto of Congressional bills. [This is just common sense; the party in power in the Congress typically protects items in danger of a veto by loading into a bill other items that a president dare not veto.]
5. Amend the Constitution to require that Congress shall pass no law that does not apply equally to the Congress and the people. [e.g., Congress has its own wonderful health care plan of which most Americans could only dream.]
6. Amend the Constitution to require that all congressional bills cite their constitutional authority. [This actually was, and perhaps still is, a proposed House rule]
7. Repeal the 17th amendment to the Constitution. [The 17th amendment provided for Senators to be elected by popular vote rather than by state legislatures. The intended effect was to dilute state influence over the Congress. Let’s give some power back to the states so they can exert more influence over Congressional excess. For those who argue that the people should elect Senators, consider that they elect U.S. Representatives and they elect the members of the state legislatures who would in turn elect the Senators]
8. Amend the Constitution to change the presidential term of office from four years to six years; and to prohibit presidents from serving more than one six-year term during a lifetime.
9. Amend the Constitution to change the term of office of U.S. representatives from two years to four years; and to prohibit representatives from serving more than one four-year term during a lifetime.
10. Amend the Constitution to prohibit U.S. senators from serving more than one six-year term during a lifetime.
11. Amend the Constitution to restrict Congress from meeting more than six months in every two years. [This provides plenty of time for Congress to address its truly necessary business, and it will force the leaders to set efficient agendas and not to entertain unnecessary and frivolous proposals. It will have the added benefit of giving Congressmen and Senators time to pursue their real livelihoods, and in so doing, more fully understand the effects of laws they pass, and more fully engage with the people.]
Two points: First, there are inevitable arguments against passing the term-limit amendments. Restricting service to one term during a lifetime is drastic—it will destroy continuity in the Congress and White House. Yes, it will. It will prevent career elected officials from catering to lobbyists in order to achieve financial gain, and it will mean that elected officials no longer will be beholding to powerful interests with money for reelection. I listened last week to an NPR interview with U.S. Representative Mike Castle, who was defeated in Delaware’s Republican Congressional Primary by Christine O’Donnell. At the end of the interview, Castle was asked what his plans were for the future. His reply was that he “really had no idea.” That, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with Congress—those elected anticipate, accurately, that once elected, their incumbency will propel them to a career in the office. Many career Congressmen have no other vocation, and expect to earn a living from Congressional pay and from dubious other remuneration from relationships with lobbyists. Another argument is that the power of the federal government will be curtailed if such amendments pass. Well, that’s the point, isn’t it?
The second point is that it is not likely that two-thirds of both houses of Congress will propose such a set of amendments. Certainly, any set of proposed amendments must come from a convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures; or a Constitutional Convention demanded by the people. Ten years ago I would have considered such action either by the states or by the people to be no more than wishful thinking. Now I think that it is not outside the realm of possibility if government continues to ignore the Constitution and the wishes of the people.
Finally, a more light-hearted proposal: Let’s pass an amendment to the Constitution that fines Congressmen and Senators $1,000 for every law passed; and pays them $2,000 for every law repealed. Who knows; the federal code may eventually become readable!
But will Republican control of Congress (and, looking to 2012, a Republican in the White House) do anything to stop the rampant expansion of federal power and the loss of Americans’ liberties? Judging from the actions of Congress and the president during the previous administration, an unqualified “no” is the answer to that question.
Stopping the erosion of freedom and liberty will come only from more fundamental change. Here is my prescription for a healthy America:
1. Amend the Constitution to limit federal spending to a set percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) except in pre-defined emergencies. [This is necessary if the government is to operate within a realistic budget.]
2. Amend the Constitution to provide for, upon the concurrence of three-fourths of the state legislatures, a veto by the states of Congressional spending in excess of the set percentage of GDP. [This is a necessary check on Congress’s ability to suspend its rules and ignore the Constitution.]
3. Amend the Constitution to prohibit unfunded federal mandates to the states. [This is necessary for the states to operate within their budgets and not be blindsided by Congressional whim.]
4. Amend the Constitution to mandate a presidential line-item veto of Congressional bills. [This is just common sense; the party in power in the Congress typically protects items in danger of a veto by loading into a bill other items that a president dare not veto.]
5. Amend the Constitution to require that Congress shall pass no law that does not apply equally to the Congress and the people. [e.g., Congress has its own wonderful health care plan of which most Americans could only dream.]
6. Amend the Constitution to require that all congressional bills cite their constitutional authority. [This actually was, and perhaps still is, a proposed House rule]
7. Repeal the 17th amendment to the Constitution. [The 17th amendment provided for Senators to be elected by popular vote rather than by state legislatures. The intended effect was to dilute state influence over the Congress. Let’s give some power back to the states so they can exert more influence over Congressional excess. For those who argue that the people should elect Senators, consider that they elect U.S. Representatives and they elect the members of the state legislatures who would in turn elect the Senators]
8. Amend the Constitution to change the presidential term of office from four years to six years; and to prohibit presidents from serving more than one six-year term during a lifetime.
9. Amend the Constitution to change the term of office of U.S. representatives from two years to four years; and to prohibit representatives from serving more than one four-year term during a lifetime.
10. Amend the Constitution to prohibit U.S. senators from serving more than one six-year term during a lifetime.
11. Amend the Constitution to restrict Congress from meeting more than six months in every two years. [This provides plenty of time for Congress to address its truly necessary business, and it will force the leaders to set efficient agendas and not to entertain unnecessary and frivolous proposals. It will have the added benefit of giving Congressmen and Senators time to pursue their real livelihoods, and in so doing, more fully understand the effects of laws they pass, and more fully engage with the people.]
Two points: First, there are inevitable arguments against passing the term-limit amendments. Restricting service to one term during a lifetime is drastic—it will destroy continuity in the Congress and White House. Yes, it will. It will prevent career elected officials from catering to lobbyists in order to achieve financial gain, and it will mean that elected officials no longer will be beholding to powerful interests with money for reelection. I listened last week to an NPR interview with U.S. Representative Mike Castle, who was defeated in Delaware’s Republican Congressional Primary by Christine O’Donnell. At the end of the interview, Castle was asked what his plans were for the future. His reply was that he “really had no idea.” That, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with Congress—those elected anticipate, accurately, that once elected, their incumbency will propel them to a career in the office. Many career Congressmen have no other vocation, and expect to earn a living from Congressional pay and from dubious other remuneration from relationships with lobbyists. Another argument is that the power of the federal government will be curtailed if such amendments pass. Well, that’s the point, isn’t it?
The second point is that it is not likely that two-thirds of both houses of Congress will propose such a set of amendments. Certainly, any set of proposed amendments must come from a convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures; or a Constitutional Convention demanded by the people. Ten years ago I would have considered such action either by the states or by the people to be no more than wishful thinking. Now I think that it is not outside the realm of possibility if government continues to ignore the Constitution and the wishes of the people.
Finally, a more light-hearted proposal: Let’s pass an amendment to the Constitution that fines Congressmen and Senators $1,000 for every law passed; and pays them $2,000 for every law repealed. Who knows; the federal code may eventually become readable!
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Hope and Change
Keep in mind that, as much as President Obama and Congress want to change the American gvernment and the economy, the people still are the ultimate power to affect change in this country.
As Jefferson said,
"I consider the people who constitute a society or nation as the source of all authority in that nation; as free to transact their common concerns by any agents they think proper; to change these agents individually, or the organization of them in form or function whenever they please; that all the acts done by these agents under the authority of the nation are the acts of the nation, are obligatory on them and enure to their use, and can in no wise be annulled or affected by any change in the form of the government or of the persons administering it." (Italics mine)
Thus, if the people do not like what Congress and the president are doing, then they may vote them out of office. It will be interesting to see on Nov. 2 if enough of the people who say they are outraged by the shenanigans of Obama and Congress will vote incumbent representatives and senators out of office in the hope of correcting the actions of the last two years; and whether a new majority in Congress will do what those who elected them expect.
It is in no way assured that Republicans, if they regain control of Congress, ultimately will succeed in reversing the egregious acts of the Democrat-controlled Congress, or that they even will try to do so. Republicans, under the 2nd Bush Administration, were as guilty of expanding the federal government as the Democrats. The only significant difference is that the Republicans have did not try to push the nation down the road to a socialist national health system. But that doesn't excuse them from their excesses in the Iraq war and in TARP.
So will there be a change away from "hope and change," or will it be business as usual? If Republicans regain control of Congress and do not correct the course down which the Obama administration has steered us, they will be pounding nails into the coffin of their own party.
As Jefferson said,
"I consider the people who constitute a society or nation as the source of all authority in that nation; as free to transact their common concerns by any agents they think proper; to change these agents individually, or the organization of them in form or function whenever they please; that all the acts done by these agents under the authority of the nation are the acts of the nation, are obligatory on them and enure to their use, and can in no wise be annulled or affected by any change in the form of the government or of the persons administering it." (Italics mine)
Thus, if the people do not like what Congress and the president are doing, then they may vote them out of office. It will be interesting to see on Nov. 2 if enough of the people who say they are outraged by the shenanigans of Obama and Congress will vote incumbent representatives and senators out of office in the hope of correcting the actions of the last two years; and whether a new majority in Congress will do what those who elected them expect.
It is in no way assured that Republicans, if they regain control of Congress, ultimately will succeed in reversing the egregious acts of the Democrat-controlled Congress, or that they even will try to do so. Republicans, under the 2nd Bush Administration, were as guilty of expanding the federal government as the Democrats. The only significant difference is that the Republicans have did not try to push the nation down the road to a socialist national health system. But that doesn't excuse them from their excesses in the Iraq war and in TARP.
So will there be a change away from "hope and change," or will it be business as usual? If Republicans regain control of Congress and do not correct the course down which the Obama administration has steered us, they will be pounding nails into the coffin of their own party.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Taxing Our Patience
The editorial in the Sun Journal April 15 was entitled, "Tax trivia to chew on today." I am commenting on several of the items in the list.
"The median family…pays more than $5,000 in income taxes, or more than 14 percent of its income…For the median family, taxes are a larger expense than housing, food and clothing combined." This is a shameful fact. Think about it when Congress proposes new taxes (which it will do soon, I predict).
"According to the Tax Foundation, it costs us $200 billion a year to comply with the tax code." So every year, to file our income tax returns, it costs us an amount roughly equal to the Obama Administration's bailout of the automobile companies or the major banks.
"Today's bottom tax rate--10 percent--is nearly double the rate paid by the rich in 1913." [That's when the federal income tax was imposed as a result of ratification of the 16the amendment] Correlate that with the increase in federal spending, the root of the exhorbitant taxes we pay. Note that most of that spending is for programs and actions that are not constitutionally within the enumerated powers of the federal government.
"The IRS has 114,000 employees…It is twice as big as the CIA and five times the size of the FBI." What part of our tax burden goes to pay for the operations of the IRS? How interesting that Americans are irate over defense spending, but not over spending just to collect federal income taxes?
"Today, the tax code has 17,000 pages, along with hundreds of thousands of pages of court decisions." How can anyone even understand, much less comply, with a tax code like that? Ah, but perhaps that's the point, is it not?
"The 1986 tax act was aimed at simplification. It ended up amending 2,000 sections of the code and creating more than 100 new forms." When Congress or the executive branch undertakes to "simplify" the tax code--or anything else--hold on to your wallets.
Evident in all these tidbits is that the federal government just spends too much, and it does so unconstitutionally, because it assumes powers not enumerated in the Constitution. Some say it's time for a tax revolt.
I think the root of the problem is the federal government's failure to operate within its constitutional limits. Maybe it's time for a revolt, period. Americans need to force the federal government to comply with the Constitution. If we do that, the federal government will spend only for programs within its legal powers, resulting in a drastic reduction in the federal budget.
And while we're at it, let's abolish the federal government's ability to spend money it doesn't have, and make sure that it can't get it by overtaxing us. Maybe government spending should be limited to a certain percentage of the GDP, and the income tax abolished in favor of a more equitable form of taxation.
My suggestion is that only states be given the power to tax (and then, only within well-defined limits), and that they then allocate a certain portion of tax revenues for the operation of the federal government. After the federal government receives tax payments from the states, then Congress can pass a budget limited to what the states give it.
We made a mistake allowing US senators to be elected directly. When chosen by the state legislatures, senators represented the states, as envisioned originally by the founders. This meant that the states could exercise more control over the federal government. So it's time to return to what worked better.
Taxes, abhorrent as they are, are only symptomatic of a federal government out of control and hell-bent on making the United States a totalitarian socialist state. Let's demand a return to a republican form of government with the true federalism spelled out in the Constitution.
"The median family…pays more than $5,000 in income taxes, or more than 14 percent of its income…For the median family, taxes are a larger expense than housing, food and clothing combined." This is a shameful fact. Think about it when Congress proposes new taxes (which it will do soon, I predict).
"According to the Tax Foundation, it costs us $200 billion a year to comply with the tax code." So every year, to file our income tax returns, it costs us an amount roughly equal to the Obama Administration's bailout of the automobile companies or the major banks.
"Today's bottom tax rate--10 percent--is nearly double the rate paid by the rich in 1913." [That's when the federal income tax was imposed as a result of ratification of the 16the amendment] Correlate that with the increase in federal spending, the root of the exhorbitant taxes we pay. Note that most of that spending is for programs and actions that are not constitutionally within the enumerated powers of the federal government.
"The IRS has 114,000 employees…It is twice as big as the CIA and five times the size of the FBI." What part of our tax burden goes to pay for the operations of the IRS? How interesting that Americans are irate over defense spending, but not over spending just to collect federal income taxes?
"Today, the tax code has 17,000 pages, along with hundreds of thousands of pages of court decisions." How can anyone even understand, much less comply, with a tax code like that? Ah, but perhaps that's the point, is it not?
"The 1986 tax act was aimed at simplification. It ended up amending 2,000 sections of the code and creating more than 100 new forms." When Congress or the executive branch undertakes to "simplify" the tax code--or anything else--hold on to your wallets.
Evident in all these tidbits is that the federal government just spends too much, and it does so unconstitutionally, because it assumes powers not enumerated in the Constitution. Some say it's time for a tax revolt.
I think the root of the problem is the federal government's failure to operate within its constitutional limits. Maybe it's time for a revolt, period. Americans need to force the federal government to comply with the Constitution. If we do that, the federal government will spend only for programs within its legal powers, resulting in a drastic reduction in the federal budget.
And while we're at it, let's abolish the federal government's ability to spend money it doesn't have, and make sure that it can't get it by overtaxing us. Maybe government spending should be limited to a certain percentage of the GDP, and the income tax abolished in favor of a more equitable form of taxation.
My suggestion is that only states be given the power to tax (and then, only within well-defined limits), and that they then allocate a certain portion of tax revenues for the operation of the federal government. After the federal government receives tax payments from the states, then Congress can pass a budget limited to what the states give it.
We made a mistake allowing US senators to be elected directly. When chosen by the state legislatures, senators represented the states, as envisioned originally by the founders. This meant that the states could exercise more control over the federal government. So it's time to return to what worked better.
Taxes, abhorrent as they are, are only symptomatic of a federal government out of control and hell-bent on making the United States a totalitarian socialist state. Let's demand a return to a republican form of government with the true federalism spelled out in the Constitution.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Give Me Liberty--Not Obamanomics!
From the Los Angeles Times, 12/29/08:
"Reporting from Washington -- President-elect Barack Obama's top advisors said Sunday that they wouldn't back away from a promise to cut taxes on the middle class and raise them for the wealthiest Americans, as they made the case for a massive new stimulus package geared toward reviving the slumping economy.
"Speaking on Sunday talk shows and in a newspaper opinion piece, Obama aides stepped up a drive to build a broad political consensus behind Obama's core economic proposals: a two-year spending package that could exceed $775 billion, coupled with tax policies weighted in favor of the middle class."
It's pretty obvious that Obama has sense enough to know that raising taxes for the wealthiest (as now defined) Americans only will not come close to making up tax revenues lost by cutting taxes for the middle class (as now defined); and that to cut tax revenues in the face of a major recession is crazy, particularly when he is proposing a $775-billion-plus spending package that some say will end up being $3.5 trillion (yes, trillion).
So what does he have up his sleeve? He simply will redefine "wealthy" to mean anyone who has an income, and "middle class" to mean those who do not pay taxes. Thus, taxes will be increased for everyone in the U.S. who is productive, and taxes will be "cut" (meaning government payouts) for those who are not productive.
Of course, it will not be so stated; but through complex legislation added to our arcane tax code, it will be easy to accomplish such a redefinition of income classes. Implementing such a scheme will amount to a major redistribution of wealth, slyly and cynically accomplished while claiming to help the middle class. The effect will be the final nail in the coffin of the American Republic, and the culmination of what Democrats have been trying to do since LBJ, building on FDR's unconstitutional New Deal measures: Transform the U.S. into a socialist state.
Look for this to take place at the beginning of Obama's second term, for there still is a remote chance that Americans would resist the plan and not elect Obama to a second term should it be proposed during the first term. But we'll see signs of preparation beginning Jan. 20.
Can it be stopped? Yes, if Americans will wake up, learn something about the constitution, read the Austrian-School economists, listen to Ron Paul, and demand liberty from the government that is supposed to guarantee it to us. Patrick Henry said it best: "…as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
"Reporting from Washington -- President-elect Barack Obama's top advisors said Sunday that they wouldn't back away from a promise to cut taxes on the middle class and raise them for the wealthiest Americans, as they made the case for a massive new stimulus package geared toward reviving the slumping economy.
"Speaking on Sunday talk shows and in a newspaper opinion piece, Obama aides stepped up a drive to build a broad political consensus behind Obama's core economic proposals: a two-year spending package that could exceed $775 billion, coupled with tax policies weighted in favor of the middle class."
It's pretty obvious that Obama has sense enough to know that raising taxes for the wealthiest (as now defined) Americans only will not come close to making up tax revenues lost by cutting taxes for the middle class (as now defined); and that to cut tax revenues in the face of a major recession is crazy, particularly when he is proposing a $775-billion-plus spending package that some say will end up being $3.5 trillion (yes, trillion).
So what does he have up his sleeve? He simply will redefine "wealthy" to mean anyone who has an income, and "middle class" to mean those who do not pay taxes. Thus, taxes will be increased for everyone in the U.S. who is productive, and taxes will be "cut" (meaning government payouts) for those who are not productive.
Of course, it will not be so stated; but through complex legislation added to our arcane tax code, it will be easy to accomplish such a redefinition of income classes. Implementing such a scheme will amount to a major redistribution of wealth, slyly and cynically accomplished while claiming to help the middle class. The effect will be the final nail in the coffin of the American Republic, and the culmination of what Democrats have been trying to do since LBJ, building on FDR's unconstitutional New Deal measures: Transform the U.S. into a socialist state.
Look for this to take place at the beginning of Obama's second term, for there still is a remote chance that Americans would resist the plan and not elect Obama to a second term should it be proposed during the first term. But we'll see signs of preparation beginning Jan. 20.
Can it be stopped? Yes, if Americans will wake up, learn something about the constitution, read the Austrian-School economists, listen to Ron Paul, and demand liberty from the government that is supposed to guarantee it to us. Patrick Henry said it best: "…as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Libertarian Blog
I just read a very well-written and politically refreshing blog, Pro Libertate, by William N. Grigg of Payette, Idaho, USA. Read it. You'll find it to be first rate. Here is a tantalizing clip from the blog:
While it cares little for customary piety, our ruling Nomenklatura displays the intolerant fervor of Paradise-bound Jihadis in defending the sanctity of the Almighty State and its avatars. In that pantheon there is none holier than the martyred founder of the Second (or People's) American Republic -- Abraham the Almighty, whose sacred likeness sits in stoic majesty in the Imperial Capital's most celebrated pagan cathedral.
Here is the link:
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/12/lincoln-gambit.html
While it cares little for customary piety, our ruling Nomenklatura displays the intolerant fervor of Paradise-bound Jihadis in defending the sanctity of the Almighty State and its avatars. In that pantheon there is none holier than the martyred founder of the Second (or People's) American Republic -- Abraham the Almighty, whose sacred likeness sits in stoic majesty in the Imperial Capital's most celebrated pagan cathedral.
Here is the link:
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/12/lincoln-gambit.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
FOGGY DAY
On the Neuse
