An American taxpayer is walking down the street. Suddenly, out of nowhere and without warning, a smelly, dirty, ragged, homeless thug hopped up on drugs steps out in front of him, hits him in the face, grabs his wallet, and then proceeds to kick and beat him just shy of senseless before running away. The poor taxpayer is left lying on the sidewalk, all bloody and bruised.

Immediately afterward, Eric Holder comes walking by, and sees him. He stops and asks what happened. The taxpayer tells him, and Holder says:

“Gee, I’d like to help you, but, see, I’m the Attorney General, and if you decide to pursue any legal action with regard to this incident, there’s a chance that my office may be involved in the case. So I’m sorry, but if by any chance you pull through, it really is in everyone’s best interest that I remain personally uninvolved in anything having to do with your situation. I’m only thinking of you. Good luck.”

Eric Holder continues walking down the street, pleased that he has avoided any conflicts of interest.

Next, Tom Daschle walks by, sees the poor taxpayer, and also asks what happened. So the taxpayer tells him, and he responds:

“Well, that is interesting. You do look to be in bad shape, and as the Director of Health and Human Services, let me just say that it is a really good thing that we now have nationalized healthcare to take care of people in your situation. Here, take this stack of forms and fill them out in triplicate. And especially make sure you read and sign the forms having to do with forgoing most of your rights. Then, make a copy for yourself, mail one set to the Office of National Healthcare in Washington, D.C., then bring the other copy to a medical facility approved and certified by our office of national healthcare. They’re all over the place: at least one in every state. Then, when they have checked your paperwork, if it is all correctly filled out, they will send you a form that allows you to request an appointment. Don’t worry, in a situation like yours, I am sure that you will be seen by an approved doctor or other medical professional within six to eight weeks. I’m just glad I could be here to help.”

Tom Daschle continues walking down the street, satisfied that he has, once again, been of tremendous service to the American taxpayer.

Next, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton walks by, sees the taxpayer, and asks what happened. The taxpayer tells her. She says:

“Wait. This does not make sense. What did you do to provoke him?”

The taxpayer says, “Nothing. I was just walking along.”

With a knowing grin, Hillary replies, “That is a very short-sighted view of the situation. You see, what you fail to appreciate is the historical perspective that has led up to this confrontation. The reality is that civilized, rational people simply do not behave in the way you described. Ipso facto, you are therefore ignoring your part in the overall oppression of not only this man individually, but all men, women, and children like him who are entirely justified in their feelings of powerlessness, alienation, and disenfranchisement. Moreover, if you bothered to read the newspaper, you would realize that there are muggers in this city. Ergo, you have also failed to appreciate that this entire episode could have been avoided if you had taken the necessary preventative measures.

“And let me just add this: it is abundantly clear to me that you did not even try to talk to this guy, to find out, by openly, willingly, and proactively approaching him through diplomatic means, if there was some common ground upon which you could base a meaningful dialog that would result in a viable win-win scenario. No, it is more than obvious to anyone but the most addle-brained idiot that you, yourself, must bear the greater share of responsibility for the situation you find yourself in. All this bloodshed could have been avoided if you had demonstrated, from the outset, your willingness to meet him at least halfway in genuine sympathy to the plight in which you have played a significant part in placing him. Here, take my card. Next time, before you get mugged, call me, and let me handle the negotiations for you from now on.”

Hillary then continues walking down the street, shaking her head and muttering, “Amateurs.”

Finally, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid walk by and see the poor taxpayer in the street. Shocked by what they see, they stop and ask him what happened. Once again, the taxpayer explains. Barack Obama crouches down and says:

“Let me get this straight. You say you were beat up by a homeless drug-addict who took all your money?”

The taxpayer nods. Barack Obama continues to ask questions, getting a full description of the man who beat up the taxpayer. Finally, he, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid look at each other with concern. Barack Obama excuses himself, and the three engage in a quick, quiet conference. Finally, Barack crouches down again and tells the taxpayer,

“Look. This is terrible. Unforgiveable. Don’t worry about a thing. All three of us are in agreement. We are going to go out right now, and find the man who did this to you. And help him.”

www.RedBloodedAmericanGirl.com

No related posts.

Now that the election is over, Obama’s win seems, in retrospect, to be the natural result of the farce that has become our presidential election. I mean, if anyone in the media had any sense or brains, why was no one mining the one obvious and vein-rich question troubling our political landscape: is this really the best America can do?

But it is one thing to accept that at least one of these fools had to win, and another to confront the fact that a disturbingly large number of young Americans have an incomprehensible adoration of Barack Obama. I can only conclude that it is the manifestation of some variety of premature dementia. At any rate, it is inexplicable by rational processes.

Let us take Obama’s meaningless campaign themes of “Hope” and “Change.” This same weightless aura is also conveyed by the insipid title to his book, “The Audacity of Hope.” This seems to me to be the essence of his persona: every vocal outpouring of his has the same overflow of practiced, smooth, grandiose . . . nothingness. It is like listening to Jesse Jackson without the theatrics and Muhammad Ali poetry, but with good grammar and diction. Is this what impresses Americans today: a stream-of-consciousness ether of abstract nonsense? Is this what Americans interpret as intelligence, conviction, and purpose?

Because when you boil down all his flowery verbiage into actual policies, they are of the same regurgitated big-government boondoggle variety that has been doled out by the Democratic Party at least since George McGovern. At his best, Obama has the gift of dressing them up very stylishly, but without a teleprompter, he sounds like a delinquent student trying to con his way through an oral exam.

The idea that all these young pups believe that Barack Obama not only is, but is capable of being, some kind of messianic savior is, in a way, grotesque. Because whatever kind of president he turns out to be, his caliber as a man is troublingly dubious. And while I could draw this conclusion by reference to a sizable selection of his questionable relationships and activities, I need only examine one: his church.

Like many other Americans, I saw Reverend Wright’s ranting spiel against America. The man has clearly got a race chip on his spiritual shoulder. But the fact that Obama attended Reverend Wright’s church for 20 years does not bother me. What bothers me is: Obama left it.

Believe me, I am no fan of Reverend Wright’s brand of “liberation theology.” Indeed, his invocation asking God to damn America clearly smacked of political discourse rather than theological sermonizing, insofar as America, being a country, has no immortal soul to damn. It also strikes one as a startlingly un-Christian sentiment: turn the other cheek, my kingdom is not of this earth, and all that. But after watching other more extended videos of Reverend Wright, it seemed to me that his sermonizing, as a general rule, was no more remarkable than other garden-variety Bible-thumping. And, much as I hate to agree with Bill Maher on anything, I suspect he is correct in that this sort of preaching has been going on in America’s black churches for decades; it is just that most non-black Americans have neither witnessed it, nor had any particular reason to pay attention to it.

But then we have Barack Obama.

Initially, Obama stated that he never personally witnessed the America-bashing in 20 years of attending the church, and never had even an inkling of Rev. Wright’s views despite his obvious close association. That, quite simply, is very hard to believe, especially since Rev. Wright himself explained on national television that his views were nothing remarkable within the bounds of liberation theology. It also explains, very plainly, Michelle Obama’s sentiment that she had never before been proud of America. But fine, let it go; I will willingly suspend my disbelief, and take Obama at his word.

But then what happened? After offering a rather feeble defense of himself and his church, Barack Obama and his family resigned their membership. Just on the surface, that would seem to validate the criticisms, rather than diminish them. But even more: what does that resignation tell us about Barack Obama’s spiritual convictions? Instead of standing by his friends, his pastor, his church, his congregation, and his faith, of 20 years, the Obamas resigned in June: a full five months before the election. That is quite an act of recantation. In short, Barack Obama took the low road. He preferred to surrender the integrity of his immortal soul rather than risk a continued publicity fallout that might impact the election.

In comparison, take JFK: his nomination was directly responsible for a strengthening of the Republican Party, as many Democrats had a difficult time accepting his Catholic faith and abandoned the party. The idea now seems almost quaint, given the lukewarm adherence to dogma practiced by so many nominal Catholics today, but a fair number of Americans believed that Kennedy, as president, would split his allegiance by doing the Pope’s bidding. Of course, it seems now to have been a fear that was wholly unfounded, but JFK was unapologetic—and he prevailed anyway.

We have no such worry with Obama. We know where his allegiance lies: it lies with his ruthless pursuit of the ambition to power.

And before anyone takes umbrage, Obama’s behavior cannot be rationalized by claiming that he was trying to protect his church. That justification simply does not stand up to scrutiny: Rev. Wright is hardly a shrinking violet when it comes to the glare of klieg lights. His already public profile and his eager willingness to appear on national television to further espouse his uncharitable views could hardly support the claim that the Obamas were trying to shield the congregation from negative publicity. Besides, the worst had been done; little more could have been exposed that would have adversely affected the church.

No, the clear import of the Obamas’ decision was to deflate any objections Americans could have to Rev. Wright’s anti-American rantings. Barack Obama offered a perfunctory expression of surprise and astonishment that Rev. Wright could be so unpatriotically irreverent, and, to put substance behind this posture, he resigned his membership. So middle America shielded its eyes, and consoled itself that, See? Surely, Barack Obama himself could not really share such unpalatable views. And Obama’s die-hard followers never had a problem with it anyway, since they most likely agreed with Rev. Wright’s sentiments.

While those of Obama’s followers who are atheistic or agnostic are probably not troubled by Obama’s resignation, given that they view religious faith as nothing but a delusion, they would be missing the point. If Obama truly believes in God, as his longstanding church membership would suggest, then resigning his membership says a great deal about his character and his priorities. If a man is willing to sever such longstanding ties to his faith and his community, what sort of allegiance can anyone expect him to demonstrate with respect to any other principle or relationship?

Since winning the election, the Obamas have relocated to Washington, D.C., and instead of trying to find another spiritual home, he has chosen to spend his Sundays working out at the gym. While by no means would I expect Obama to spend every waking moment trying to find a new church in his new city, I can’t help but wonder what message his sudden lack of interest in setting aside time for God sends to his two young children. I know what message it sends to me.

What kind of a man sacrifices a relationship of 20 years in pursuit of ambition? What kind of a man abandons spiritual succor to embrace worldly power? Whatever the answer, Obama is that kind of man. Believe it or not, as someone who does not support him, that is somewhat consoling to me: at least I can be assured that any belief he purports to espouse is likely to be a product of political expediency rather than true conviction.

So Obama himself does not particularly bother me. No, I am troubled by something else. And that is: what sort of person idolizes a man like Obama? Because that is the sort of person who put him in the Oval Office, and that is the sort of person who is populating this once great nation of ours. In four or eight years, Barack Obama will be irrelevant. The real struggle facing America is for the minds and character of our electorate.

Related articles by Zemanta

• How Obama Got Elected
• “I think most people voted for Barack Obama because they decided they wanted him to be in their living room for the next 4 years explaining policy.

No related posts.

I have been reading some of the post-mortems on the election, and it really is rather humorous. All sorts of people are trying to pick apart the reasons John McCain lost and why Obama won. Of particular note are the columns from the conservative press lamenting about what lies ahead for the future (if any) of the GOP.

The reason I find this humorous is that so many of the opinions are full of half-baked theories about what American voters think and what American voters want. They’ve completely missed it. These political commentators have become so used to political rhetoric that they now actually think in rhetoric—like a student learning to speak a foreign language. So far, I have read that (1) the GOP needs to abandon social conservatism; (2) the GOP needs to embrace social conservatism; (3) the GOP needs to move to the center; (4) the GOP needs to recapture the right; (5) Sarah Palin cost the McCain campaign; and (6) if not for Sarah Palin, McCain would have gone down even harder. No . . . really, guys . . . you can’t be that mystified.

Well, I have a suggestion: how about putting up a candidate who believes in something . . . like maybe . . . the GOP platform? Now, don’t get me wrong. I respect John McCain’s sacrifices for this country, and think he is generally a good and honorable man. But, um, so what? What did he really stand for, other than a vote against Obama? He sounded amazingly like “me, too, only less so.” In fact, I don’t know a single Republican who voted for him in the primary. How’d that guy get in there?

Obama fanatics notwithstanding, neither candidate showed the slightest spark of life. Obama was smooth and a good orator—at least, in front of a Teleprompter. But he was a suit with a lot of nice-sounding platitudes, and a sizable collection of dirty laundry. McCain was unexciting, unattractive, and uninspiring. In fact, the question the GOP really ought to be asking itself is: how did McCain do as well as he did, given all the advantages Obama had in terms of personal attractiveness, media coverage, political strategy, and a disastrous economy? Let me repeat that: a disastrous economy.

The GOP should be celebrating in the streets! While the Obamanistas are patting themselves on the back, they might stop to ponder why their golden child won by only 8 million popular votes running against a 72 year-old man who is as exciting as tapioca pudding. If I were in Obama’s camp, I would be worried. The worst economic collapse in 80 years, and he cannot absolutely rout the incumbent party? I know the credit crisis is not primarily Bush’s fault, but the chief exec goes down with the ship. Face it: under the circumstances, Obama squeaked by.

Now imagine, if you will, if the GOP put up a candidate who had a little charisma, and who was willing to articulate the GOP policies that all the rest of us know are sound: cut tax rates, reduce the size of government, cut federal spending, and allow Americans the freedom to pursue happiness in their own way, instead of having the government make all our choices for us and do everything but wipe our sniveling noses. If the GOP gave us a candidate like that, all these pundits could stop worrying about polling criteria regarding religion, race, sex, or what-have-you. Here’s the main problem, guys: voters vote for people. And McCain was a dud.

Over and over, I am reminded of the aphorism: a leader is not someone who finds out where the crowd is going, then runs out in front. Yet that is exactly what both political parties gave us this year. Doesn’t ANYONE have any principles, have the integrity to actually live by them, and the spine to proudly espouse them? When are we going to see a candidate who leads instead of panders?

Which brings me to Sarah Palin. Now, there was a candidate who had a personality, not a script. And that is precisely why she inspired such adoration among one crowd, and vitriol among another. Does it not strike anyone else why Sarah Palin attracted more attention and crowds than McCain? To listen to the election coverage, you would have thought Palin was the candidate, not McCain. And the reason Biden’s equally (or arguably more) stupid statements did not get as much coverage as Sarah Palin’s gaffes is that Biden is about as appealing as the end of Christmas vacation. Really. In all fairness, Americans should have expected a 30-plus year veteran of the Senate to be more informed on matters relating to the federal government than a 44 year old first-term Governor from Alaska, but no one had enough interest in Biden to even tell him if his fly was unzipped.

The GOP should learn a lesson from Sarah Palin: she connected with people because she was genuine. And her personal charisma made her a media magnet. It’s not her fault she was thrown to the wolves. In fact, her composure under fire was admirable—she showed more guts and grit than the rest of the candidates and, for my money, that shows leadership ability. I’m not saying I thought she was the ideal candidate; I would have preferred someone more seasoned and prepared. But she was undoubtedly the best candidate, warts and all. Sarah Palin knows what she believes in, and she is willing to stand up for it. It’s too bad all her energy and enthusiasm were squandered on a losing proposition.

So now I hear the GOP are lamenting the quandary they find themselves in: “Gee, Sarah Palin energized the traditional right, but we do not want to touch her now because she was crucified by the press.” Well, if the GOP has no stomach for battle, why bother? Unless the GOP grows the cajones to stand behind what they believe is right, whether or not the public is wise enough to see it, then the rest of us have no use for them.

If all the GOP is offering us is a sip of cool water on our way to hell, then neither party is doing America any good. Maybe we voters are the definition of insanity. Every four years we go through this election, and we get the same lousy result. New president, same stupid government. It’s just too bad that people with integrity and dignity have too much integrity and dignity to run for president.

No related posts.

There is an awful lot of talk these days about rights. Every group claims to have “rights”—homosexuals, women, children—and we all claim to have rights to all sorts of things: clean air, quality childcare, and so on. But most of the time, the term “right” is a complete misnomer.

A “right,” as it is used in a political sense, means the freedom to do something without the government interfering in the exercise of that freedom. For example, the right of free speech means that one has the right to say what one wants, without fear of legal repercussion. Under the First Amendment to the Constitution, this right encompasses the right to voice any political opinion or even to burn a flag (strangely enough, since this is not, as I understand the term, “speech”). While the free speech right does have some limits, for the most part, the term “right” applies quite correctly.

But the other day I was talking to someone who expressed the opinion that everybody ought to have a “right” to medical care. Well, the right already exists; the government is not hindering anyone from obtaining medical care. But of course what they were really talking about was not a right at all, but an entitlement: “free” medical care. But medical care is patently not free; on the contrary, it is tremendously expensive.

Consequently, this loose use of the term “rights” is, in fact, destructive of real rights. By applying the term “rights” to what are entitlements, people are demanding all sorts of things that must come from somewhere. We are not talking about freedom at all. Instead, we are talking about an encroachment upon freedom: all of society must pay for these programs, thereby limiting the freedom we have to choose other ways to spend our money—privately or publicly. In the end, universal healthcare is the antithesis of a “right.”

And let’s take a look at the implications of this program even more closely. President-elect Obama wants a nationalized system in which everybody, regardless of resources, is entitled to adequate health care. Fine. Sounds dandy. But there are 305 million people in America. So where are we going to get this care, and how are we going to ensure its adequacy? According to the AMA, we can expect to have a shortfall of 85,000 to 200,000 health care providers by the year 2020. How do you provide everyone with something that there is not enough of?

This is the problem with nice-sounding pie-in-the-sky ideas that are spouted so glibly by politicians, and in particular by left-leaning politicians like Obama. Gosh, everyone should have a house; everyone should have plenty of food to eat; everyone should have a college education. Of course, nobody in politics has the huevos to say, outright, “Are you insane?” Because if you express any opposition to these programs, you are “insensitive” and “greedy.” Just because Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have a few billion dollars does not mean that, if they handed their wads over to scads of poor people, there would be enough of everything to go around.

Of course, the promise of universal health care is a message deliberately aimed at people who never think beyond the surface. Voters who favor these ideas would never vote for them if they ever seriously contemplated (or researched) what would be required to create such programs as a practical matter. How do you design a program intended to serve 305 million people who all have a different conception of what they want and need? How do you promise a limited resource to everyone, when American schools are not producing enough doctors and nurses, let alone individuals willing and able to empty a bedpan? And that’s just the tip of the iceberg; forget hospital beds and drugs. I am awestruck at confronting the bizarre reality that people who want free medical care for all hold a sincere and deluded belief that 535 members of Congress, only a handful of whom can even spell “MD,” will actually come up with a plan that even remotely fills every American’s medical care needs (not to mention, of course, all those illegal aliens whom our leftist brethren will not forsake). What is this judgment based on? Our government’s stellar record? Can American voters really be that willfully ignorant? What scares me is: apparently.

I oppose these grandiose programs because they are utterly unrealistic and simple-minded, and because, like every other government boondoggle, they are destined to be wasteful, inefficient, mired in bureaucracy, outrageously costly, ineffective, and destructive of our social fabric. I know that is a little redundant . . . have I left anything out? And what chaps me even more is: THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN TRIED BEFORE, AND IT HAS NEVER WORKED. Do people really think a 100% failure rate is just chance, or is that just because whoever tried it before didn’t do it right because they weren’t as smart as Americans are? The problem with socialist programs is not that they are ill-intentioned, it is that THEY DON’T WORK!

I sympathize with people who need medical care but cannot afford it. But how about taking a realistic assessment of what is going on in the current system, fixing what’s broken with the cost and delivery of services (like lawyers, malpractice insurance, and government paperwork), and finding a way to provide services to those who need them? How about just providing a lousy $10 billion in the federal budget to provide 1 million people with $10,000 worth of services per year? That ought to cover most of the problem. Because, if you get right down to it, it would be cheaper for all of us tax-paying Americans if we just up and paid the medical bills of those who cannot afford them, rather than hand over the whole shooting match to the federal government to screw up. How about it, anyone? Should I just start up a charitable organization that agrees to pay these bills? Okay, done. Problem solved.

By instituting a national one-size-fits-all system, we will encounter the same problems that every other country has encountered, only probably worse, because this is America, and we like to do things on a big scale, especially our failures. Because any time a privilege is free, it is abused, folded, spindled, and mutilated. Try this on for size: you exercise every day, keep your weight down, and eat your fruits and veggies. Your next door neighbor watches television all day, smokes, drinks, and eats junk food. Here’s a swell idea: why don’t you and he enter into a contract to share your medical costs, 50/50? Sounds fair, right? Uh huh. Welcome to socialized medicine.

No related posts.

Here’s a funny thing that’s, um, not so funny. I have listened to Barack Obama and to John McCain talk about income tax rates to people asking questions about income taxes, and I have watched other people discuss income taxes on television, and read a bunch of people ranting about income taxes, and complaining about income taxes, and whining about income taxes . . . you get the picture.

But not one individual discussing this election—Obama and McCain included—has presented the real picture of what they are talking about. If they did, we would see how utterly ridiculous this discussion is. The only ones seriously looking at income tax policy are places like the Heritage Foundation, and I am sure they are all pulling their hair out over there about the nonsense that is masquerading as policy.

Is anyone looking at data from the Congressional Budget Office, or reading the dry, dull reports of the Bureau of Economic Analysis? Any voter willing to study income tax revenue as it relates to income tax rates? To compare income tax revenues historically as it relates to GNP? Of course not. That’s boring. And yet, everyone is an expert on what income tax policy ought to be. Amazing.

Let’s get something straight. Income taxes are not about redistributing “wealth” from rich people to poor people, or letting rich people “keep their money.” Because even if you aimed to achieve either of these results, it could not really be accomplished through altering tax rates. The income tax does not tax wealth. It taxes income.

Simplified example: if you are a zillionaire, you may structure your finances and assets in such a way that you do not pay any income tax. Suppose you need a few hundred thousand bucks to live on. Well, if you own anything worth more than a few million, just borrow the money against collateral: no taxes on borrowed money. Do you care if you ever pay off the loan? No. Let the estate pay it back when you die, and it will reduce the amount of inheritance tax—which you’ve mostly taken care of through trusts and corporations, anyway.

Put some money in non-taxable vehicles, like T-bills: low return, low risk, but no taxes. And if you have zillions anyway, why do you need a high return? You don’t. Anyone can live on a 4% return if it’s 4% of 20 million bucks: $800,000 per year, tax free. About the only taxes you would have to pay are the same ones as everyone else: property taxes and sales taxes. But Warren Buffet, the billionaire, pays the same sales tax rate as you do if you both buy from the same store in the same state. Naturally, he probably buys more than you do, so I suppose he pays more, but he really doesn’t pay at a higher rate. And the rest of us? Most of us live on our income from our jobs. We all pay through the nose.

So let’s talk about income. Even when you have taxable income, higher rates on higher incomes do not translate into higher government revenues—or mean that the government will receive taxes at the higher rate. Let’s take the Obamas and the McCains. The Obamas file a joint return. In 2006, their adjusted gross income (AGI) was $983,826. Their tax? $277,431, or 28.2% of AGI, after charitable donations of $60,307 and other deductions. John and Cindy McCain file separately. John’s return showed income of $338,809, and he paid $96,933 in taxes, after deducting $96,758 in charitable donations and other items. His rate? About the same as the Obamas: 28.6% of AGI. Cindy McCain, who comes from a wealthy family, showed a whopping income of $6,066,431. I don’t know how much she donated to charity, but her overall deductions were over half a million dollars, and she paid $1,722,283 in taxes. Her tax as a percentage of AGI? About the same as John and the Obamas: 28.4%.

Hmmm. The top individual income tax rate is 35%, which means that people making over $350,000 are supposed to pay 35% of all income above $350,000. Now, between John, the Obamas, and Cindy, you would say that there is a pretty large income disparity. John made below this threshold amount, the Obamas earned a fair amount above the threshold, and Cindy made way over this threshold. But they all paid about the same percentage of AGI. Why? Well, let’s take a look at the tax code. AHA! Tax rates are window dressing. Given the types and amounts of deductions, and a little sound advice, it is fairly straightforward to structure income to avoid the higher rate.

Is that bad? No. I happen to think that they ALL paid too much. Think about it: 28% of their income went to support government operations. In total, two households paid $2,096,647 to Uncle Sam. Plus, they gave (assuming some of Cindy’s deductions are for charity) well over $157,000 to charity. That’s not enough for America? Please. And let’s not kid ourselves that Congress will ever eliminate or seriously tamper with the deductions and other small print; that is the real meat of income tax policy.

If Uncle Sam went ahead and raised the top tax rate to 50% for individuals who make over, say, $500,000, I suspect you would not see any higher revenues, and I suspect few would ever pay taxes near that rate. If you look at historical tax rate tables versus income tax revenues, you find out that there is no direct correlation: higher rates don’t really yield higher revenue. So people can blather on all they want to about whether we should or should not “tax the rich” more, but it is a pointless discussion. Moreover, the top 10% of all income earners already pay 70% of the U.S. revenues received from income tax. So, say thank you to the Obamas and McCains, and stop whining.

And don’t even entertain the notion that Congress will or should tax wealth (at least, I hope, not in my lifetime). According to OpenSecrets.org, 62%, of our Senators and Congressmen have a net worth in excess of $1 million, with the top dogs being: Rep. Harman (D), Rep. Issa (R), Senator Kerry (D), Senator Kohl (D), and Rep. Hayes (R), all of whom are worth over $100 million. I added party affiliation here to illustrate that any sympathetic rhetoric doled out to everyday bumpkins like you and me is a bipartisan load of B.S. These people are not about to cough up anything. So to anyone buying into the “tax the rich” rhetoric: you are living in Lalaland.

One more point: I don’t resent the rich. Every car they buy, every designer outfit, sailboat, expensive dinner, vacation home, bottle of XO, gold watch, and golf club membership puts money in the pockets of people like you and me who work for a living. That’s my idea of wealth redistribution: conspicuous consumption by the wealthy. I would much rather see their money go into the pockets of hard-working Americans than into the pockets of Washington bureaucrats or able-bodied welfare recipients who are too lazy to work. By any measure, the rich handle their money more wisely than Uncle Sam; that’s how they became rich.  (And not $10 trillion in debt.)

So, if you want a piece of pie, baby, stop whining and cook your own.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Will Obama’s tax plans bite small biz?
• Hugh Hewitt: The Big 3 Deal
• Cutting Taxes to Save the Economy

No related posts.

I logged onto Seesmic the other day and caught an interview of the British comedian John Cleese talking about the presidential election here in the United States. In case you’ve never heard of Seesmic, it is a website where you can comment on . . . oh, just about anything, but the commenting is all on video.

Anyway, John Cleese was sharing his views on Sarah Palin’s debating skills, as well as the wisdom, or lack thereof, of the American voting public, based, of course, on whether or not they shared his political views.

Now, I don’t mind John Cleese sharing his views, but I must say it was not a little amusing to listen to him get snobby about how wise or foolish American voters are and have been in past elections, as though we ought to take his advice to heart. It is nothing personal against Mr. Cleese, but I have a hard time keeping a straight face when actors are interviewed on politics as though their opinions on politics—or frankly, just about anything other than acting—should carry any weight with the rest of the world.

Now, I understand what is going on: when you like or admire someone, you want to be like them; consequently, actors often have a great deal of influence over their fans. But that is what makes their officiousness so bothersome. And the really funny thing is, when I pointed this out in a comment, a bunch of people seemed to take offense at my suggestion that we ought not to take Mr. Cleese too seriously.

It is perfectly all right to agree with his views, mind you; my whole point was that I was somewhat . . . skeptical, shall we say? . . . about Mr. Cleese’s credentials, such that anyone should form their opinions of who would make a better president based on his assessment. To be fair, I suppose I should give him his due in assessing who is a better performer on stage—Sarah Palin or Joe Biden—since that is relevant to his profession, but I am not sure that acting skill in politicians is something to be admired. I mean, if Sarah Palin sounds a bit stilted, and Joe Biden sounded as smooth as silk, maybe it’s simply because Joe is better at memorizing his lines, and thus a better actor. I mean, he sure sounded smooth a few years ago when recounting his family lore in a stump speech. But it turns out he plagiarized wholesale the bit about his family background from a speech by Neil Kinnock.

And before everyone gets all offended at that assessment: look, the plagiarizing charge is old news, is well-documented, and Mr. Biden conceded to it, so I am not raising it here as a “dig” against Sen. Biden. In fact, I am raising it here because it demonstrates my point that being a smooth-talker is not a particularly reliable indicator of sincerity or integrity. Neither is it an indicator of competence in any other area of life. After all, lots of terrific actors have made a complete hash of their personal lives.

But getting back to the point: doesn’t anyone else find this practice of garnering actors’ endorsements of presidential candidates laughable, and worthy of ridicule? And I sincerely mean that whether the actor is endorsing a Republican or a Democrat. What qualifies an actor to assess who would make a better president for the American people? Take a look at this election: for weeks, we had McCain and Obama arguing about who was more “out of touch” with real America. Oh, so we should ask . . . an actor? And even more, the more famous and popular an actor is, the more we should listen to them? HELLOOOOO! If anyone is out of touch with the rest of America, it is actors and actresses who get paid astronomical amounts for pretending they are other people a few months out of the year.

Now, having said this, let me make it clear that I don’t begrudge actors’ their hefty paychecks; after all, I’m contributing to their coffers every time I buy one of their DVDs. But what do they know about me and what my life is like, such that they are qualified to give me advice on anything? If they are not on the screen in a movie worth watching (which is rare enough, I might add), I really couldn’t give a you-know-what what they have to say. I mean, if John McCain or Barack Obama told you what movie ought to win the Academy Award for Best Picture, and then proceeded to tell you that you were a fool for not agreeing with him, wouldn’t you find that a bit bizarre, not to mention silly and arrogant?

And why stop at politics? Let’s ask Russell Crowe his views on child-rearing, and Julia Roberts her opinions on modern architecture, and the guy who does Scooby-Doo’s voice on how we should handle the nation’s credit and financial crisis. Sure, they have opinions, and sure, you might agree with them. But their opinions only tell us something about them, and it is utterly beyond me why I or anyone else (other than their friends and family members, I would say) should care about their opinions on these subjects. I, and the millions of people like me who are subjected to these actors’ “wisdom” by a fawning (and frankly sickening and sycophantic) media, personally don’t know these people, and it seems to me their opinions are no more persuasive or weighty than the opinion of my daily mail carrier on these same subjects.

If these actors want to talk about acting . . . well, that is a subject on which they are qualified to speak with some authority. And I would listen to them if that was a subject I developed an interest in. But American politics and my future? Sorry, guys, but I haven’t yet seen or heard any actor yet whose viewpoint was persuasive for any reasons that would convince me that I ought to listen to him.

Many actors seem to have an unnaturally strong desire and need for public attention and adoration. In that way, they are like a lot of politicians. But that need hardly justifies why we should be subjected to their viewpoints. Having to endure listening to American politicians is torture enough.

Use your head, America.

No related posts.

Okay, I am still steamed. This whole mess is a sad, dirty joke being perpetrated upon the American people. Here are a few more thoughts.

So Congress put a limit on executive salaries. This is supposed to make me feel better? If I had run my company into the ground, I would not encounter a pay ceiling, I would be out of a job. Come, on, America, these are the MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE, we are talking about: the crème de la crème, the elite. Look, I’m a relatively bright individual—I have a college degree and a law degree (whoopee, for all that’s worth). But even I have a hard time really understanding derivatives and so forth . . . and it turns out that these geniuses didn’t really understand them either, apparently. (I am being nice, and not claiming they are out and out crooks.)

Lots of Americans—in particular, people with retirement funds—relied on these geniuses to understand all these sophisticated security products, things that us poor benighted fools were too ignorant to bend our minds around. America trusted a bunch of self-aggrandizing politicians and Harvard MBA’s and Wharton grads to protect and invest their money wisely, even conservatively. But no, they are just too smart for the rest of us. And now we’re bailing out these jerks, letting them keep their jobs . . . and trusting them again with $700 billion more! Gosh, there’s no limit to how stupid we are! Burn me once, shame on you, burn me twice, . . . ?

It turns out they were all weaving The Emperor’s New Clothes. Then they turned around and sold them to pensioners, China, Europe, anyone who had a buck. If I had raided my grandmother’s pension, I would be in jail, but the silver-spoon set are running around scot free and getting more money from you and me.

So, what, instead of making $2 million plus, these executives are making $250,000? Don’t kid yourself. I bet it’s not even that low. And are they working somewhere on the Jersey turnpike now, or do they still have swank offices in downtown Manhattan? Expense accounts? First Class airfare? All the nitwits in Congress think that is perfectly reasonable, since they all belong to the same Big Bucks Club. You see, Congressmen and Senators are Masters of the Universe, too. They don’t seem to realize that you and I meet all our families’ expenses at less than half these amounts. But then, we’re just ignorant peons.

These people should get zilch: if they can still afford to eat and keep their homes in the Hamptons or the penthouse on Central Park West, they should get nothing. Their entire compensation packages should be tied to performance. Note to the wary: if you don’t vote your stock proxy according to who owns the biggest piece of the stock pie, you are a fool. Executive fortunes should ride with yours.

And while I am at it: the same is true with all the members of Congress. Heck, make it the whole federal payroll. They should not make a cent unless it is from a budget surplus. Then you might see them be a little more responsible about spending our tax dollars—the way you and I have to be responsible about our own family budgets. In fact, let’s do it department by department, agency by agency: compensation comes out of what they saved from the budget. Then, instead of budgets growing every year, they would shrink, because suddenly everyone would work their asses off being more effective and more efficient, and they would cut the dead weight.

Oh, and thank you, Congress, for revising the bailout bill to increase the amount of federal deposit insurance to $250,000. That sure was a deal breaker. You see, the idea is that this gives people much more confidence in the banking system. Yeah, okay, so when the bank goes bust . . . oh, I get it. You and I, as taxpayers, now get to pay out to people who had a quarter mill in the failed bank. THANK YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH! Never mind that neither I nor anyone else I know has even $100,000 (the former limit) in a bank account anyway . . . I would be happy to insure the wealthy!

HOW STUPID ARE WE? The only source of revenue for the feds to insure these funds is you and me, the taxpayers. Here’s another idea: for every bank that fails, the very first place we should go to for insured funds is the pockets of the Senators and Congressmen who voted for this moronic piece of legislation.

Oh, and that federal deposit insurance sure makes those banks accountable . . . yes, sir . . . now, when they screw up, they don’t even have to pay the piper. You and I do. Why not force insurance onto the private sector? Like lawyers who obtain malpractice insurance. If banks are run well and conservatively, then a private insurer would be happy to collect a hefty premium to cover depositor’s insurance, and the bank has an incentive to run itself well to keep its premiums down. And we can be sure that the insurer would audit the you-know-what out of that bank. And if the bank has no insurance: well, they need to disclose that to depositors, and all bets are off. (Sure . . . yeah, I’d bank there.)

But no, we have a smarter idea. Let the taxpayers insure the depositors, no matter how lousy and lavishly a bank is run and no matter how foolishly they risk depositors’ assets, and trust the government to watch out for our interests by providing adequate oversight for these institutions. Yeah . . . that works for me. Duhhhhhh.

WAKE UP! Yes, the world is in a terrible credit crisis, but this piece of garbage legislation was rammed through by people who don’t know what they are doing. This is the definition of insanity: people who do the same thing over and over and expect different results. I know . . . let’s give a lot more money to the same people who failed before, because THIS time, they’ll get it right. And that trust is based on . . . what, again? I kind of missed that.

These government big wigs and Wall Street whizzes really do think they are the MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE. But I suppose if we were stupid enough to elect the one lot and give our money to the other, maybe they are, because we are so foolish that we gave them our money once, we are giving it to them again, and we still let them take more of our money from us. For whom are we working? I thought the 13th Amendment outlawed involuntary servitude. Hmmm. Must be mistaken.

And let’s all get our minds around that number, America: $700 billion. If you had spent $2 million every day since the year of the Norman Conquest of England in 1066 . . . you would ALMOST have spent $700 billion by now! (You would only have 16 more years left to spend $2 million a day.) Ponder that, America.

It’s time for some leadership. Anyone? Anyone? Because it is not going to come from our next president. They believe that the government not only can, but will, save us. And anyone who really believes that is a certifiable idiot.

Related articles by Zemanta

• No Bailouts for Jobless or Homeless
• Bush appeals to Congress to reverse bail-out rejection
• ‘Wanted: Bank failure specialist.’ Pays $156K

No related posts.

I have been a Republican for many years, but it is really hard to vote Republican this year. And by that, I don’t mean I would vote for Obama. What I mean is, all I hear on the media—internet included—is: whose fault is this credit crisis? And the answer is: the blame falls on a lot of people. And one of the biggest culprits is the federal government itself—just the government, not the Democrats or Republicans, but a stupid government that thinks it can do everything for everyone—especially helping the poor buy houses that they can’t afford. And not one candidate, Democrat or Republican, is acknowledging that fact.

Instead, they just keep telling us that they will fix it. Right. They were too stupid to even understand the problem they were creating over a period of years, and too stupid to recognize how their feeble-minded egalitarian policies were digging this hole . . . and they really think that a plan slapped together in two weeks and $700 billion will bandaid this thing? Let’s be clear. Congress is made up of 435 representatives and 100 Senators, most of whom were trained as lawyers, and most of whom have been banging around the Capitol Building for so long they can’t even answer a simple question without blathering on in politic-speak for ten minutes before they realize that all you asked them was where the nearest restroom is.

I mean, did you listen to the answers in the debates? Enough with the bipartisan nonsense and the who voted for what. Who cares? Sarah Palin was a relief, just because it was nice to hear someone state a simple declarative sentence that actually means something. The media were inordinately impressed with Joe Biden just because he could smoothly spout his voting record—even though it turned out that he was lying through his teeth about that. But if you were such a brilliant leader in the Senate for 35 years, Joe, why is the country in such a bloody mess? Where is even the slightest hint of humility or shouldering of responsibility for what our wonderful government has done to this country–not to mention the rest of the world?  We don’t need foreign terrorists to destroy our country; our own home-grown do-gooder legislators and investment bankers have done an absolutely bang-up job. 

And now they are going to “fix” it.  Honestly, do you really think that 535 lawyers understand this monster on their hands well enough to really get us out of this jam? And here’s another funny thing: don’t the do-gooders who want national healthcare see what is in front of their own faces? Gee, the government did such a wonderful job meddling with our markets, why don’t we let them take over healthcare? Just what we want: hospitals run by the same types of bureaucrats who operate the DMV. Nationalized healthcare for everyone means you get to compete for a kidney transplant with some street bum whose been drinking Thunderbird for 20 years.

And finally, a lot of the blame falls on all of us. Because we let the government play us and we were–and continue to be, apparently–stupid enough to trust them with safeguarding our welfare.

And face it. It isn’t just Wall Street that was greedy—a lot of us were, too. How many of us put our heads down and paid down our debts and lived within our means? We sit here and talk about how the national debt is going to fall on the backs of our grandchildren, but have we done a lot better? How many of us have saddled down our own households with debt that stretches out over the next few decades? How many of us put our own money—retirement and savings—in the hands of Wall Street, wanting to get in on the goodies?

The prices of our homes were going up, so we thought we couldn’t lose. People maxed out their equity, or even borrowed greater than their homes’ values, figuring everything was still on the positive side of the balance sheet so long as real estate went up. Banks and credit card companies went along happily, feeding our desire to have more than we could afford—extending us credit at usurious rates for everything we wanted: new cars, bigger televisions, fancier holidays, vacation homes, timeshares, boats. And even if you personally did not go whole hog, a lot of people did.

The evidence was there for us to see, too, but we didn’t want to work that hard. It was easier to go along. You know, it’s amazing, but the amount of faith we had in the system was based on very little—certainly, not based on our hard-earned knowledge and understanding of the financial and credit markets. Certainly, not based upon our in-depth understanding of the legislation that was shifting all of the lending and accounting rules for lending institutions, so that money was being given to people who hadn’t the faintest clue about (or interest in) the responsibility of home ownership.

If we lost a little, we want to blame someone else and get in on the gravy train. Well, take a bit of humble pie, instead, if you need to. And if you feed at the trough, welcome to the Union of Socialist States of America. Oh, and getting back to voting: I guess I’ll vote Republican, but only because I believe Obama is a liar and a socialist. But no matter whom we elect, if we trust the United States government to get us out of this mess, then we deserve whatever we get.

No related posts.