Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Happy Tax Day!

Today is the day when most Americans officially pay our income taxes, or to be more accurate this is the day the government takes a certain percentage of our hard-earned income. Today, we Americans make a poor investment, with little chance of getting a good return on our dollars. Much of the money we send to Washington will likely be wasted on earmark spending, discretionary spending and failed social programs. And this spending will be done by politicians who openly complain about corporate corruption and all the waste, abuse and fraud in the corporate world that must be reined in by Washington. The difference between the two is that we voluntarily invest in corporations, and the corporate world pales in comparison to Washington when it comes to waste, abuse and fraud.

As we've all heard, the Democrats have a major problem with our current tax system. They feel the rich pay too little, and the poor pay too much. Their solution: "roll back" the Bush tax cuts, which would amount to a MASSIVE tax increase for all Americans. The truth is that the Bush tax cuts were a percentage, approximately the same for all taxpayers. Of course, the rich will pay dollar-for-dollar less money than they did before but that's obviously because they initially paid a much larger amount. The dems have latched on to this as a way to say that the Bush tax cuts have "unfairly favored the rich". Here are the facts, as of 2007:

-The top 20% of income earners pay 86% of America's income tax revenue
-The top 40% pay 99.4% of the tax revenue
-The bottom 60% pay 0.6% of the tax revenue

Can somebody explain how this unfairly favors the rich? What exactly do Obama and Hillary object to? Of course, they object to the notion of Americans paying less in taxes...period. The less we pay, the less control the government has on our lives, which is a cornerstone principle for the democrats. Their contention that the current tax system unfairly favors the rich is an outright lie! So Hillary and Obama have the same ideas, more government programs and higher taxes. Same song, different verse.

And today, John McCain announces his plan. Before I get into it, I'll repeat my previous position that the government already has plenty of our money, taking more is simply out of the question. If they need money for something, they need to find it by cutting spending somewhere else. That's the main thing I like about McCain's plan. Here are the details:

-doubling the federal income tax exemptions for dependents, from $3,500 to $7,000
-declare a summer gas-tax holiday, suspending the 18.4-cent gas tax and 24.4-cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day this year (I like this because the dems love to complain about gas prices, but McCain seems poised to put it to a Senate vote, no doubt putting his opponent to the test)
-offering people at risk of foreclosure a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage loan backed by the federal government (not sure I like this, but I'll tolerate it if it means passing the rest of his plan)
-phase out the alternative minimum tax (an absolute must, the AMT is ridiculously unfair)
-tweak the prescription drug benefit to exclude taxpayers who can afford medicine without government assistance
-overhaul the tax code, close "costly, unfair" corporate loopholes and veto every bill containing earmarks (this is a promise that I truly believe)
-use the money saved via his proposals to ease the burden on employers by lowering the business income tax from 35 percent to 25 percent
-one-year pause in discretionary spending while the government conducts a "prompt and thorough" review of each department's and agency's budget. Military spending and veterans benefits would be exempt (it's about time someone actually looked hard at how our tax dollars are spent)

This is a sound plan. It is fair. It does NOT raise taxes and it would be the first step in cutting back on the wasteful spending, something that is long overdue. The idea is that the government can afford more tax cuts by becoming more efficient in how it spends money...what a refreshing concept! It's better than anything either dem candidate has to offer and, best of all, it's realistic. I'm tired of hearing the dems promise tons of government programs while claiming the can pay for it by only raising taxes on the rich. They obviously think we voters are incredibly stupid. McCain takes a different approach and I think it will be well-received.

I also like reducing the corporate tax rate. The dems have long complained about the outsourcing of US jobs to foreign countries (as evidenced by Obama's recent "cling" comments), yet they seem to think that free trade is the reason for this without even mentioning our corporate tax rate. The fact is, free trade is a detriment if we are trading with countries who have lower corporate tax rates. It's inevitable that corporations will pack up and move away to avoid our outrageous taxes, taking the jobs with them. Who wouldn't? We have the world's second-highest corporate tax rate and if that doesn't change we will continue to lose industry and jobs to foreign countries that promise NOT to punish corporations for setting up shop. Decreasing from 35% to 25% (the international average) would be huge in stopping this trend, but you'll never hear the dems admit this. In their eyes, business is evil and must be taxed to the brink of bankruptcy no matter how many people they employ. That way they can tax businesses while complaining about the common man losing their jobs to foreign competitors. This is to their benefit since they can then step in and make promises to this common man that the government will "take care" of him, a cornerstone in socialist thinking.

So bravo for Senator McCain. I support his plan 100%. I'm okay with paying taxes, but I'm not okay with Congress wasting my money. It's about time someone actually changed things. It's about time someone offered a sound plan, free of fancy speeches, that promises less government and more individual liberty. Now, let the attacks from the Left begin.


Anonymous said...


Of course we are all against multimillion dollar bridges to nowhere. On the other hand, if your representtaive in Congress earmarks spending in your diostrict that creates jobs or improves the quality of your life, how can you be against that practice?

Speaking of wasteful spending, I remain of record that every dollar spent on the invasion of Iraq was and is a dollar that could have been better spent. For the first time, I believe, we have waged a war and not raised taxes to do so. In effect, we put it on the national credit card.

Sorry, but I think your position on American corporations is completely wrong, as I have said in the past. Corporations are all about making money. If a corporation canb make more money by outsourcing jobs to a place where labor is cheaper, it will. Too bad for all those people in MI, OH, PA, and other places whose jobs went elsewhere. I suppose thay can work in fast food joints or other places for a low hourly wage w/ no benefits.

If you have never read Neal Stephenson's "Snow Crash," I recommend it. Written in 1992, Stephenson portrays America in the not so distant future in which the only things the we do better than everyone else is play rock 'n roll; write computer code; and make pizza.

Meanwhile, if you really want to scare yourself, read Kevin Phillip's new book, "Bad Money."

Our problem, economically, is that we as a country do not manufacture much anymore. Our entire economy is largely based on consumerism and the provision of financial services. This is the real reason why the American century is over and the Asian century has begun.

You touched on it when you discussed taxes and as much as you do not like him, your statistics support what John Edwards said about two Americas. I have not yet made up my mind about realing the Bush tax cuts. It is willful blindness, however, not to recognize that those tax cuts overwhelmingly favored the wealthy.




"We have (aggressively) waged a war"...is very much like saying the identical thing about Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941.

We were ATTACKED then by the Japanese Imperial Navy, and we were...

Also the Victims of Global Jihad Attack on our U.S. Embassy on Nov 4, 1979 by a calculating Grand Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran,

then by Syrian "Hezbollah" in Beirut in 1983, and again by Al Queda in New York in '93, then by Al Queda off the Yemeni Coast, 2000 (USS Cole) plus two Embassies in Africa (Clinton & Carter did little to nothing in RESPONSE).

Finally George Herbert Walker Bush did decide to Confront Saddam in1991 for the Kuwaiti Invasion (which was a prelude to Iraq going into Saudi Arabian Oil Reserves, and total domination of the Industrial World. Follow This Three Decade Continuum!

Only The Left-Wing Politicians wish us to believe George "Dubya" Bush began this Middle-East War by
Invading Iraq. Sleepy Americans Are
Allowing This Fiction To Continue!

Distortion & Deliberate Lies Must Be Challenged. Political Hate Dubya Campaigns Must Be Exposed!

Iraq, Iran, and Syria are our mortal enemies. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are "fence-sitters" in this
power struggle, watching & waiting,
hoping for freedom's eventual demise. They ALL hope for Sharia Law to dominate this planet, and minor religious differences are put aside as a necessary "Modus Vivendi" for later resolution.

Well-meaning people like L.G.K. fail to see the patience inherent in Global Holy War...Jihad.

Politicians like to nit-pick the two Republican presidents that foresaw and understood the nature of, and need to Confront This Cruel, Suicidal Theocracy, and its many faces, its multiple delusions.

Muslim Holy Warlords Enrich Uranium
(U-235) for distribution to the crazies of Hezbullah & Al Queda, as
we quibble about our inability to secure our borders, and intoxicate ourselves in abject local politics.

The Democratic Party has lost its way, and is no longer a force for good. The Republican Party is now
a shadow of its former self, mired
down in the complex nature of today's world affairs, unable to Defend its Basic Fundamental Principles, its Proud History, and its Sacred Honor. We are adrift as
the War-clouds of Armageddon approach us; too many sheep, not enough sheep-dogs!

Billionaires playing political games with vast sums of money, manipulating our nation's future.

Rabid Appeasers with shrill voices
demanding "Peace". Men like George Soros, controlling vast sums of money, buying political influence, with True Agendas Unknown. reb

Anonymous said...


Well meaning people, such as myself, some of whom have read a little history, recognized that the invasion Iraq would turn into the quagmire that it is, even if we did not make some of the mistakes that we made.

The invasion of Iraq was at best a minor beach head in the war against global jihad, yet we have committed a disportionate amount of our military resources there for gains in the larger war that are dubious at best.

The epicenter of global jihad was and is in the tribal areas of Pakistan, now that we have largely expelled the Taliban form Afghanistan.

But we are stuck in Iraq for the foreseeable future.



Loop Garoo,

Let's take a fantasy trip to Never-never Land. It's either Hillary or Obama that gets the presidency on Jan 20, 2009.

Now, ask yourself...or perhaps a
secular-progressive peace-lovin' friend, a very outrageous question:

Now that we have superior intellect
in the Oval Office, how much longer
will Global Jihad continue (?) now that we have fulfilled Our Promise to remove all of our troops from the Midddle East (Pelosi, Reid, and Koo-Koo Kucinich will really like that)...we beg all of those suicidal muslims to forgive our aggressive tendencies, and have a Gen. Betrayus negotiate for a century of blessed peace?

But who shall we trust? A Persian Grand Ayatollah, Hezbollah, al Sadr Militia, the Saudi Royals, or perhaps Osama bin Laden or Ayman al Zawahiri? Should we send Senator Kerry or smooth-talkin' Teddy Kennedy and Pelosi to negotiate a "deal" for a once noble U.S.A.

Give us your enlightened, fanciful,
'Open Society' fictional scenario...

Perhaps Michael Moore can help with the script. reb

Anonymous said...


Sorry to mix metaphors but I will leave you w/ two observations which are close to being universal truths: 1. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube; 2. A leopard cannot change its spots.

Therefore, we cannot undo the invasion of Iraq, but expecting that the nation of Iraq will somehow emerge from the current process as a stable democratic state flies in the face of 5,000 years of history and culture.

In the meanwhile, the effects of the invasion on nearly every aspect of our own society is overwhelmingly negative.

As for all of the potentates you mention, none are trustworthy. They were not trustworthy 5 years ago. They are not trustworthy now.
So why did the architects of our foreign policy, one which you seem to support or least have never repudiated, gamble the success of the mission and the prestige of our nation on untrustworthy allies?

Whether we stay in Iraq another two and half years--probably the minimum amount of time from now it would take us to withdraw--or two and a half decades from now, you may bank on there being a revolution; coup; or junta within days of our departure.

So what is your suggestion? Throughout the tenure of our correspondence you seem always to have taken the position that we are fighting a global jihad, therefore any blow against "them" is a blow well struck. "They" may have similar goals but what do you think would happen if OBL sat down in the same room as Ali Khameinei?

Perhaps instead of supplying an unifying motive to the jihadists we should exploit their differences? Of course that particular course of action would never occur to practitioners of cowboy diplomacy.



John Washburn said...

"at best a minor beach head in the war against global jihad"

The Islamofascists disagree with you. Iraq is THE fight and they're committed to it. Beach head is right, but minor? Not sure you understand much about what is going on. We win in Iraq and it's a catastrophic blow to Islamofascism. We lose, and the larger war on terror can't be won. Minor beach head? Loop, Iraq is the Gettysburg of this war.