Obama To Make Draconian Budget Cuts

President Obama, after spending a mere trillion dollars on government growth in an effort to "stimulate" the economy, and pushing dramatic leaps in Federal spending in his budget, has laid out a bold plan to cut as much as $100 million.

Budget:	$3,000,000,000,000
Stimulus:	$900,000,000,000
Cuts:	$100,000,000

How can he make these awful cuts, while spending in other areas barely keeps pace? Is he going to order women and children to starve in the street, while AIDS patients are left with no medicines, and senior citizens choose between paying the light bill and buying cat food to eat?

Sphere: Related Content

One Trillion Dollars

(orig)(Jonah Goldberg)

Sphere: Related Content

Tax Loopholes

Tax loopholes are measures enacted by Congress to achieve some policy goal, like encouraging oil production or getting people to move back to central urban areas from the suburbs.

Tax loopholes are evil economic manipulation, I think.

But closing a loophole doesn't help the economy, generally. All it does is remove the incentive it was put in place to provide, so discouraging the activity it was designed to foster. Generally there isn't a lot of money for the government to gain.

Another effect of closing tax loopholes is to raise the general level of economic uncertainty. What is a good business activity? Companies and individuals don't know what the rules are if they keep changing.

Similarly, the more loopholes that are created and subsequently removed, the less effective tax policy will be.

But I guess in the end, any business which bases its activity on the presence of a tax loophole for it deserves what they get when the loophole goes away.

Sphere: Related Content

Of Envy and Admiration

Sometimes people are successful at what they do. Others are not. Sometimes people succeed, sometimes they fail. Having failed, we learn (or not) and try again.

When we see other people who are more successful, we have really only two options, though a third lingers: we can resent them, or we can emulate them. The lingering third is what most people end up doing, which is observing from afar and doing nothing. On some level we pass judgment, either in favor of or against the more successful. From the corrupt.org link above:

Some people assume that if any person they don't like is more successful than someone they like it is primarily or solely due to moral inferiority - a greater willingness to lie, cheat and steal. This mindset is common in underground subcultures, though some mainstream progressives also think this way. A more advanced version of this mentality adds the assumption that anyone who is successful in the "wrong" areas - for example dating or country music - must be a despicable and morally inferior individual.

There is a danger in giving up, in deciding that your sweat and diligence are no match for the world. But there is no higher virtue than working, being paid for it, and saving for a better future in which you no longer work for money, but money works for you. That, and not mere home ownership, is the American Dream.

When people decide that the only way they can get ahead is to lie, cheat, and steal their way to the top, they have one of two options: do it themselves, or vote for it. We call the first group criminals, and the second group liberals.

Sphere: Related Content

Detroit CEOs: Beatings to Continue Until Morale Improves

These guys should not be in Washington, asking for money. They should be in Detroit, making it.

Actually, they should be standing in front of a judge, asking for Chapter 11 protection from the unions bankrupting them. They plan to do some of that, according to this unreliable source, but not enough.

General Motors Corp., Ford and Chrysler LLC said they would refinance their companies’ debt, cut executive pay, seek concessions from workers and find other ways of reviving their staggering companies.

The only thing they need to be asking Congress to do is to drop the stupid CAFE standards and let the naturally rising gas prices influence which kind of cars people buy.

Now Ford is promising to boost fuel economy across its fleet by 14% this year. But they can't keep that promise, because it again depends on which cars people buy. For Ford to make the effort means that they are pursuing something other than the long-term viability of their company, which will inevitably lead to a suboptimal result.

Further, the car companies are expected to put a moratorium on incentive pay for salaried workers. Rather than reward success, the companies are going to punish failure.

And by selling airplanes, restructuring operations, and undergoing other cost-saving changes, they are simply nibbling along the edges of their problem, which is that because of their high labor and tax costs, they can't make money selling fuel-efficient cars..

Selling 14% more of something is not a recipe for success when you lose money selling each one.

Sphere: Related Content

Congressman: Bailout Dwarfs Income Tax

From Beyond Bailouts:

...Over the Thanksgiving break, [Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX)] noted Congress had given the Treasury Secretary the authority to spend $1.7 trillion of your tax dollars (although the bailout has cost far more than that). That number is greater than the $1.21 trillion the federal government will receive in income tax this year. So what's Gohmert's plan? He wants to revoke the Treasury Secretary's authority to buy assets and instead suspend the income tax for a year.

Sphere: Related Content

Government is the Devil's Evil Twin

Over at Power and Control, Simon says:

The government IS the Devil. Not metaphorically. Really.

Everything you get from government will have a price much larger than the value of the object gained. Some times the price will not be extracted from you. Sometimes it will be from your children, your grand children, or ten generations hence. But the full price the government wants will be extracted at compound interest.

We are still paying the price for trying to be a free people while holding slaves. My great great grand parents lived on another continent when all that went on. And yet the price is being extracted from me.

I think I blogged a generalization of this a while back, but maybe I just thought of it and never did. Ah, found it, in that link.

Government creeps. Given power in one area, it will keep that power as leverage to extend its reach into another.

You cannot deficit spend without an eventual tax increase -- or the lack of an otherwise obvious decrease.

You cannot say that drunk driving (without actually harming anyone or breaking any traffic laws) is illegal without eventually losing the right to take any other risky action.

You cannot have Roe v Wade and not later get Kelo.

And you cannot grow a bureaucracy big enough to manage the health care system without surrendering your right to criticize the government. You watch.

At least the devil lets you enjoy the crap you sold your soul for. Government doesn't even give you that.

Government is not the Devil -- it's the Devil's evil twin.

Sphere: Related Content

What's In It For ME?

I'm scared.

For a long time we've known that when the people learned they could vote themselves money from the Treasury, the end was nigh.

They have learned it.

Whether it's Barack Obama's "tax cuts for 95%", jobs Americans won't do, corporate bailouts, or the third rail of Social Security, the appeal is always to the personal interest of the voter.

Joe the Plumber was attacked on the basis that he'd be better off under Obama's tax plan -- and unsubtly, that Joe must be stupid not to know that or dishonest in failing to admit it.

Illegal immigration is pushed on us with the offer of inexpensive farm produce. The principle of knowing that our neighbors and townsfolk have the same loyalty to America that we have is never mentioned.

The financial market bailout, or at least the direct mortgage buyout part, was sold to us on the basis that even if we did everything right, our neighbor in foreclosure would harm our home values.

And Social Security, of course, is renowned for destroying the careers of those who try to do anything but increase the benefits of those receiving it.

The list goes on. We have become a nation of beggars, lazy bums who are happy to see any expansion of government, endure any loss of liberty, as long as it benefits us personally.

There's nothing in that for me.

Sphere: Related Content

Barack the Sophist Makes Personal Attack on Everyone

Quoth The One, alias Barack the Taxer:

"The reason that we want to do this, change our tax code, is not because I have anything against the rich. I love rich people! I want all of you to be rich. Go for it. That’s the America dream, that’s the American way, that’s terrific...

"John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic. You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."

In the first place, Barack the Insufferable Sophist misrepresents both his opponent's position and his own. He has repeatedly railed against "tax cuts for the rich". His case has been one of playing the dissatisfaction and envy of those who have less against those who have more. He knows he isn't going to make anyone rich by giving them $500 or $1000 of someone else's money. The point is "fairness", not the creation of wealth, and it makes a lie out of your claim to love the rich.

It would be far too cynical a reading of that statement to accept it in the only sense in which it could be true. Barack the Five Year Planner wants everyone to be rich so that he can tax them all.

But in the end it isn't to make someone rich that Barack the Disingenuous Windbag wishes to give them money; it's to make them dependent. Wealth comes from risk and work, and there is neither risk nor work when people vote themselves mammon from the treasury. There is only abuse of the democracy for the purpose of gaining and maintaining power.

Taking money from one group and giving it to another is socialistic. It just is.

Giving out checks is not the way to get people "rich", even as Barack the Slider variously tries to redefine richness down from $250,000 to whatever figure he needs at the moment. If by some perverted definition of richness he claims that he is bringing wealth to those who don't have it, he is engaging in a get rich quick scheme.

People get rich on their own, when the grubby little hands of government are kept out of their pockets.

But then comes the insult: Barack the Weasel implies that anyone who doesn't want to give him money to give to others is "selfish".

Government is not the best judge of how I should use my money. I am. Without Barack the Thief's stinking taxes, I would be in a much better position to give to others.

Barack the Tempter is urging others to be envious. Envy is a vice, not a virtue, and those who encourage others in vice bring peril on themselves. Better to have a millstone tied around one's neck, in fact. As Jeremiah Wright would say, "That's in the Bible."

Sphere: Related Content

Obama: Communists Are The Nice People

Barack Obama is trying to divert attention from his collectivist economic policies through his usual redefinition+strawman tactic. Noting that John McCain and Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher called his wealth-spreading ideas "socialism", Obama complains joyfully:

"By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich."

No one gets called a communist for sharing their own resources, something Barack Obama does not in fact do (unless it's for his own benefit).

Kindergarten communists share other people's toys, and other people's lunch money. Barack the Spreader wants to share other people's wealth.

If the shoe fits....

Sphere: Related Content

By Faith Are We Saved

In a 1995 interview, Barack Obama says:

EOB: I’m wondering if the ethnically-mixed couple of today, if when their child is thirty-four years old, if they’ll find it any easier to deal with these issues than you have found it?

Obama: That’s an interesting question. I’m not sure. I think in some ways there’s less novelty to the idea of mixed couples. They’re not seen as lurid or perverse in ways that I think they were thirty years ago. I think that this country is inevitably going to be undergoing changes simply due to demographics. There’s been a lot of talk about the “browning of America” ...

EOB: I was just going to use that same phrase ...

Obama: ... and I think that is going to be happening. We can’t ignore it. I think whether or not my children or your children will have to struggle with these same issues depends on what we do, and whether we take some mutual responsibility for bridging the divisions that exist right now. And I really want to emphasize the word “responsibility.” I think that whether you are a white executive living out in the suburbs, who doesn’t want to pay taxes to inner-city children for them to go to school, or you’re an inner-city child who doesn’t want to take responsibility for keeping your street safe and clean, both of those groups have to take some responsibility if we’re going to get beyond the kinds of divisions that we face right now.

So in his world, whites must pay higher taxes to heal racial division.

Thug.

Transcript (pdf) of the interview.

(w/t Gateway Pundit)

Sphere: Related Content

The Tax Issue is a Distraction

We pay enough in taxes to run the government that we ought to have. We don't pay enough to run the government that we do have.

The answer is to shrink government, not increase taxes.

Because as long as the government spends more than it takes in, eventually we (or our children) will have to pay the price.

Unless, that is, we can vote ourselves out of paying taxes altogether, so that other people pay instead.

Sphere: Related Content

Voting for Dollars

Barack Obama and John McCain are arguing over which tax plan would benefit this or that group of taxpayers the most.

That misses the point completely. The question is which plan is best for the country, not which is best for a particular individual.

And we don't know which plan would be best, because neither plan will be implemented. Either plan would be worked over by Congress. In Barack Obama's case, the Democrats would throw in all kinds of special interest goodies. In John McCain's case, he'd have to accept changes to get it through what is likely to remain a Democrat-controlled Congress.

What we have to look at is the basic philosophy behind each plan.

Barack Obama says he wants to soak the rich, while John McCain says he wants to cut spending.

Sphere: Related Content

Comrade Obama's Tax Shell Game

Barack Obama is fond of implying that his tax proposal(pdf) will variously lower, not raise, or not affect 95% of Americans.

But only 70% of Americans pay any Federal tax at all, and many of those who do pay taxes don't pay much. So I decided to do the math. Luckily for me, Ace and the Wall Street Journal beat me to it.

Obama wants to give every "worker" $500 ($1000 for "working couples"). His web site says "workers" and "working families" are who get the cuts.

Don't call me a "worker". I'm a citizen, comrade Obama.

So clearly, the 95% figure refers to those "workers" who do pay taxes. He's going to hand out a check to everyone, but raise the rates enough that the top 5% get a tax increase. Or more properly, the government gets the increase. He has the nerve to say that even then it's not an increase, just a way to get back to the way things were when Reagan was President, 18.2% of GDP.

But he lies with the numbers: if he's going to give a cut to 95% of "workers" and everyone is going to get a cut, the money has to come from somewhere. He calls it "closing loopholes", when a loophole closes and you pay more, you get a tax increase.

And who pays more? Business, especially small businesses and oil companies. At a time when businesses are struggling to meet their short-term obligations because they can't borrow for them, Obama wants to raise their taxes.

Small businesses will obviously bear the brunt of Obama's tax increases. Busineses large and small will be forced to raise prices. And the relative trickle of companies leaving the United States, and taking their jobs with them, will become a flood as the last one out gets to turn off the compact fluorescent light.

As Fred Thompson said, under Obama's plan as long as you don't have to buy anything from a business, you'll be fine.

Sphere: Related Content

Redistribute the Wealth, Says The One

Barack Obama is a socialist. He believes that if one person has more than another, it's the government's right and duty to even things out.

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." -- Barack Obama

Via Gateway Pundit:

Sphere: Related Content

No Bailouts. None!

We've been presented with a choice: either we allow the Federal Government to borrow $700,000,000,000.00 to buy some bad investments from people who should have known better, or our economy will fail.

I say: it fails either way.

Either it fails in the obvious way, with businesses closing and lots of pain, or our system is shown to be a failed design, unable to carry on without socialist action.

But it was socialism which got us into the mess we're in, not capitalism.

Eric at Classical Values quotes Ace and delivers his own analysis:

The problem is the relentless push for socialism (a word few will use), which has done enormous damage to the economy by the simple misuse of a two word phrase:

"Disparate impact."

This is the legal doctrine behind much of the abandonment of standards in the name of "fair lending," but it is not limited to banking. It has come to permeate almost every aspect of business culture ....

It's gone too far already. This fear we have of racism and being called racist is driving our economy into the ground, and may even cause us to elect a man purely on the color of his skin, when the content of his character is, to the extent we can see it, odious beyond measure.

Sphere: Related Content

List of Issues for Obama Keeps Growing

I decided to make a little list of the problems with the presidential campaign of Senator Barack Obama (D-IL).

• Antoin "Tony" Rezco is a Chicago political fixer who is on trial for doing illegal stuff. He helped Obama buy his house, and Obama has other machine-politics ties to him
• Hamas endorses Obama
• Louis Farrakan endorses Obama, and Obama's church gave Farrakan an award
• Reverend Jeremiah Wright called 9/11 our fault, said God should Damn America for her faults, said the government invented AIDS to kill blacks. Obama never said a word, but continued to be a member and to give money to the church
• Reverend Wright is building a house, except it's owned by his church (so he doesn't pay taxes on it)
• The Antisemitism of Rev. Eric Lee, key not speaker at an event honoring Martin Luther King, Jr., after thanking Jesus for Obama
• Throws grandmother under the bus
• Granny is typical white person fearing people who aren't like her
  
• Geraldine Ferraro charged with racism for saying race was a key factor in Obama's success
  
• William Ayers was a domestic terrorist in the 60's and 70's, who was acquitted by government bungling of his case. He launched Obama's career in politics with a party at his house
• Obama equated his relationship with Ayers to that with Senator Tom Coburn
• Obama's economic advisor told Canadian officials that his anti-NAFTA campaign rhetoric would be dropped after the election
• Obama campaign says "We don't take money from lobbyists or political action committees", but that's not accurate
  
• After losing a debate, he gave Hillary a passive-aggressive finger
• Obama sees Taxes as a way to punish the wealthy, not as a necessary evil for financing government
  
• Iraq exit strategy, which is almost the same as John McCain's: get out as soon as we can.
  
• Dishonest hypocrisy over McCain saying we could be in Iraq long term, as in Germany or Korea.
  
• Because the government hasn't helped them, people in Pennsylvania and rest of country cling to their guns and religion and hatred for those not like themselves
  
• Will not upset Chinese bankers by boycotting Olympic opening ceremony
  
• Taking credit for legislation he didn't work on
• Literally favors infanticide, and works to make it legal
  
• Michelle Obama has never been proud of America until the campaign
• Lapel flag pin: now you don't see it, now you do
• $1M for the hospital where his wife was an executive
• Michelle Obama says all their friends are lawyers
• Walking around money in Philadelphia
• Campaign official says they don't need working class whites to win
  

Sphere: Related Content

The Workman Deserves His Wages

Click the title.

Jeremiah Wright is building a mansion, tax-free. I'm in the wrong business.
(w/t FrankJ)

Sphere: Related Content

Ceding power to the State

The quote from William F. Buckley, "I will not cede more power to the state.", gave me reason to recall a principle that is not spoken enough. Whenever we ask the government to do anything for us that we like, we are giving it the power to do something we don't.

If we wish to keep our freedoms of speech, press, and public meeting, we cannot allow the freedom of religion to be curbed, for it is only by limiting the first three that the fourth can be impinged.

Ask government to limit freedom of speech, press, art, or any other freedom in the interest of morality, and you also give it the power to limit your own freedom of speech, press, or art when next the pendulum of change swings against you.

We cannot demand a war on drugs without losing the battle for liberty. And if one poor lifestyle choice is so illegal as to allow the police to seize your assets without due process, why are the other poor lifestyle choices any different? Should drinking, smoking, gambling, pornography, foul language, overeating or speeding on the highway be any different?

We cannot ask the government to spend money it doesn't have without incurring a higher tax burden. While it's true that government revenues tend to increase over time when taxes are lowered, that is not a reason to increase spending in anticipation of higher revenue. Government spending requires that the government get funds via taxation at some point. If we lower taxes and wait for the increased revenue (from greater economic activity), increased spending counts against a future tax cut.

Looking at the bigger picture, many people entertain the fantasy that only certain parts of government are problematic. Some wish to increase defense spending, or farm subsidies, or education funding, or some other portion of government, without realizing the implications for the rest of government. Any increase in spending, unless it is accompanied by an equal cut in another area, increases the size of government. That increase requires increased taxation, and neither the increase in spending nor the taxation required to achieve it will ever go away even once the problem they ostensibly address is no longer a concern.

If you ask the government for "free" health care (or even "free" health insurance), be prepared to have government then control your behavior in the interest of decreasing medical costs.

Not only must we not cede power to the state, we must not ask of it any favors.

Sphere: Related Content

Friday Official News Agency Bulletin

The IRS has developed a plan to close a serious loophole in the tax code. It seems that many people have been hiding assets, and this unconscionable state of affairs must be put to an end.

Child welfare advocates and parents express outrage today as a policy change at the Internal Revenue Service allows them to view dependent children as assets... assets that can be taxed and, if necessary, seized.

While some might argue that the IRS has no authority to tax mere assets, and not income, one thing is certain: at some point, every one of those assets was income, and it shows how broken the system is that people have been uniformly hiding that income from the IRS.

It's time these tax evaders and cheaters were put on notice.

Sphere: Related Content