You Don't Deserve More Tax Dollars

How are we going to get out of the financial mess we are in, both in Pennsylvania and in the nation? The Tea Party has been adamant about cuts and more cuts. To which the elites in the media, on the left and Washington in general say, "We can't just do it with cuts. We need to raise taxes."

To this I say, "YOU DON'T DESERVE ANYMORE OF OUR TAX DOLLARS!". There is talk of taxing I95 and 422. Talk of taxing gas drilling, eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts, a VAT tax, a Carbon Tax. This is but a small part of a much larger list. It does not take into account antiquated taxes that were never repealed when the times changed. Government has not been responsible with the money we have sent and continue to send to the treasury, by what reasoning should we send more?

We can not accept new taxes, whatever the form, unless and until government at all levels has proven that they are taking responsibility for SPENDING. The American people understand that there are some things that government must do and this requires revenue. Were we convinced that the government was being responsible with that revenue, then we would not have an issue. It is clear that this is not the case.

Why do we not see a responsible government? Because the money goes too far away from the people who earn it. When I send money to my township government, I can see where it is going. If I have a complaint I can go to the Mayor or the counsel and discuss changes to what is being spent. If I am still not satisfied, I can run for one of those local offices and take responsibility myself.

This is less so on the State and Federal level. The bigger the beaurocracy, and the more people represented by an individual Assemblyman or, Congressman, or Senator the more difficult is

a: to be heard. (It requires an expensive lobbyist or a rabble rousing community activist to be heard at these levels.)
b: to avoid the inevitable influence of big money on a large scale (again, the expensive lobbyists), or
b: to run for an office that will than allow me to take on the responsibility to make things right. (The bigger the office, the more complicated and expensive it is to run for it. This eliminates many citizen legislators from the pool of potential leaders.)

This was the genius of our Founding Fathers. They new this from their studies of history and from being beholden to a ruler that was a thousand miles away.

The trick to solving the problem is to leave the bulk of government responsibility with the local governments. Cut the Federal Programs (and mandates) and the Federal Taxes and let the local government handle things like police, healthcare, homelessness, etc. If my Federal tax rate went down to 5% (or zero) but my local taxes went up to 5%, or 10%, we would be paying less, and I garauntee we would be getting more.

The larger the government, the smaller the individual. This Country has been a beacon of hope because it was founded on principles of allowing individuals to flourish in an environment of largely "self rule". It was not great because it was wealthy, it was wealthy because it was FREE.

If Healthcare Passes Let the Impeachment Hearings Begin

The Clinton debacle was about sex and sex is private? Fine.  President Obama’s birth certificate issue is settled and it is only being perpetuated by nutjobs?  Ok. 

There is nothing more fundamental to a Presidency however, than the President’s oath of office, to protect and defend the Constitution.  That is the job of every President, and Obama is no different. 

It is understood by a vast majority of the American People, that this healthcare bill is unconstitutional (a good, but by no means comprehensive, explanation as to why can be found here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703278604574624021919432770.html.

I submit that the President is aware of this as well.  He has been quoted, and video taped talking about fundamentally transforming the country, as has his frequent White House guest Andy Stern (SEIU) and several of Obama’s high level staff members (Van Jones et. al.)  His track record of leaving the American People in charge of their own lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness, as the founders intended, has been atrocious.

A convincing argument can be made that George W. Bush should also have been impeached for the Patriot Act among other things.  There is no argument that can be made that can justify the Constitutionality of the Federal government taking ownership of GM, part of Chrysler (the other portion being given to Unions), AIG, Bank of America, etc.

If he is willfully undermining the Constitution, thereby breaking his oath of office, then come November, when the Presidents party loses control, the proceedings to remove him should begin.  This can not be cast as his personal business, as this an actual affront to the God given freedoms that he is sworn to protect above all else.  The Republicans should not allow politics get in the way of protecting our nation.  We the people must make sure that they do not.

If a President cannot be impeached for this, then I ask you, for what can you impeach a President?

The New Jobs Bill

The New Jobs Bill

          More proof they don't have a clue

By: Larry Poli

 

This job bill was prepared by a group of people, who have never run a business, had to make a payroll or provide a service for which customers had a choice.

The bill offers a payroll tax exemption of the 6.2% of wages paid to FICA.  This can total up to a wage cap of $ 106,800.00.  This exemption is for 1 year from date of higher and if you keep the employee for more than 52 weeks the business gets a $ 1,000.00 income tax credit on year 2011 tax return.  The exemption only applies to new employees that were unemployed for at least 60 days prior to being hired.

What are some of the flaws with this bill, (like shooting fish in a barrel) (You know I'm conservative, that last statement would piss off the gun control advocates and PETA at the same time)

 

1)      This tax credit is only going to help those that were planning to hire any way. No company is going to make a decision to hire based on a tax credit of any amount.  If the business is run well and doesn't need the added employee why will they hire?

 

2)      The 60 day rule has many problems on its own

a.       A good company with good hiring practices will be looking to hire the best away from the competition if they need new people (The best would not be unemployed very long)

 

b.      What if there are two candidates and the one with greater qualifications has only been unemployed for 30 days and the other for 61 days.  Is a smart business going to hire the less qualified because of a tax credit?  Is the business going to make an offer to the shorter term unemployed and they stay on unemployment for 30 more days.  Now the government is paying for 30 days more unemployment, giving a tax incentive of up to approx. $6,600.00 and the person unemployed for 60 days is still unemployed.

 

c.       This whole 60 day requirement "smacks" of union input.  Remember the first on the bench the first hired back.  It sounds as if the law makers are saying  " those unemployed the longest "deserve" to be hired back first , it's only "fair"

 

 

 

 

3)      Another point to the 60 day rule and unemployment benefits

a.       If there are 2 people and 1 has been unemployed for 6 months and the other for 1 month wouldn't hire the 1 month unemployed save the country on unemployment benefits.  Why do I say that, the one unemployed longer has already burned through the benefit and they will be done soon, the newly unemployed has 5 additional months of unemployment benefit to collect.

                                                               i.      I wonder if this added cost of unemployment benefits has been figured in the bill

b.      This would be a liberals answer to job creation: If you are "giving out" jobs it is only fair to "give" the job to the person unemployed the longest because the one newly unemployed has more benefit to collect.

 

 

This bill is a way for the government to attempt to influence the hiring practices of business.  Successful companies (Those not getting bail outs) don't need help to make hiring decisions.  Companies will hire more people when they are needed to service their customers. Simple.

 

Or the government could be attempting to influence the job search practices of the newly unemployed.  Wait 60 days then start your job search.  Now think about that, if those newly unemployed report they are not looking for 60 days are they then not counted in the unemployment number?

 

As I stated, this will only help those companies that are already planning to hire and they would hire even if the jobs bill was not available.  Will companies take advantage of the Jobs Bill tax credit? Of course they will.  But there is not a direct correlation between the tax incentive and hiring more people.

 

This will benefit companies that hire union workers (especially in construction) because of the first fired first hired back model of the unions.   I knew this had to be a pay back to someone. 

 

Let me give you an example,  the government give a company a tax deduction for gas purchased for use in company vehicles, this does not mean I buy more gas than I need.   The government is giving other incentives to buy equipment, if I do not need a new van I don't buy it just because of a tax incentive. 

 

The government cannot "create" or cause the private sector to hire more people except through spending.  (Even that spending is inefficient, but that is another issue).  The government can "Create" an atmosphere in which the private sector may hire.  The government can do this by doing "NOTHING".  If the government got out of the way, take away the uncertainty that business face as to laws or requirements that may come from the government.  Reduce payroll tax across the board and that will cause more private sector spending, thus driving the need to hire more people to be of service. 

 

Early to Bed Early to Rise

The wealthy and wise Benjamin Franklin once described the route to his stature was to go to bed early and rise early.  In response, I have made it my New Year’s resolution to follow this credo.  This has caused me to examine why I have, up until now, been unable to follow through on this.

I have come up with a multitude of reasons.  The top five are listed below:

Lost
So you think you can dance
Smallville
Fringe
Battlestar Galactica (now Caprica)

As you may have noticed, they are all wonderfully entertaining television shows.  I do enjoy them so.  I found that I would sit and watch them with my laptop warming my lap so I could convince myself that I was actually accomplishing “work” while zoning out in electric lit bliss.  This is similar to what I would tell my parents and friends about my viewing habits when I was in film school; “It’s research!”

Which brings me to my point; our nation has lost a great deal of wealth, a great deal of health and a great deal of wisdom in the last 50 or so years.  It started right about the time that primetime broadcasting was created (must see TV).  Now I am not saying that entertainment execs did this to purposefully create a lazy, slavish culture (although I would not put it past them).  But that seems to be the effect.  We are now in the age of distraction with more video games, movies and television shows than there are hours in a decade, and more being created everyday.

As I work to make adjustments to myself, I pray that I do not succumb to the mind-numbing that can so easily take hold.  And I pray that my fellow Americans can detach from these chains long enough to see that the happiness that God has given us the right to pursue does not live in an electric box, and it can be more effectively pursued with a good night sleep.

Who Does the Campaign Finance Decision Really Benefit?

We hear all of the bluster from the Democrats bemoaning the decision from the Supreme Court last week.  But haven’t we known for quite some time now that the Democrats receive more in corporate donations than do the Republicans.  Put that together with the money it is now legal for Unions to spend, and it is obvious who benefits most from this decision.  Why, the Democrats ofcourse.

For example, according to www.opensecrets.org Barack Obama in 2008 raised $803,436 from Google alone, that’s more from one corporation than three of McCain’s donors put together (also corporations).  Add to that another 800k from Microsoft, almost a cool million from Goldman Sachs and oh, 1.5 million from University of California.  If, instead of donating to the campaign (or in addition) these corporations ran ads.  A formidable force for the Progressive movement.  This does not even take into account the unions.

Am I missing something?  Or this all just posturing by the Democrats?  And why would they do that?

A Theory on the Brown Victory

Call me a cynic, but do you think it is at all possible that Democrats in the House and possibly the Senate found a way to covertly help Brown win in Massachusetts? 

I don’t want to take anything away from the Tea Party movement, because I know how hard they worked and how effective they were, but his victory was a huge gift to Democrats in the House.

Many of these members may have been forced to swallow the pill (pun intended) of the horrible “Healthcare” legislation by party leadership.  “Support the President’s agenda or face the consequences,” I can hear Axelrod and Pelosi saying.

I have heard rumblings that some of these house members may have voted for the legislation due to the pressure, and with the belief that the legislation would die in the Senate.  How’d that work out for them?

We the American People ended up in a Progressive Powered sports car heading toward a cliff and the only exit ramp left available was to remove the filibuster proof majority in the Senate. We in the Tea Party, and the Grassroots of the country new that.  I think these House Democrats new that as well.  It is the perfect excuse for them to come out and refuse to vote for the bill.  There are just too many things they don’t like in the Senate bill, but the House bill was dandy.  Ok..sure.

I am loath to give any credit to the Democrats right now.  No matter what the reason, the destruction of my nation and my Constitution is too stiff a price to pay to protect a career as a Democrat.  Those who voted for that bill as well as Cap and Trade and the Stimulus should all be removed from office this year.

But if you do some digging, I would be interested to see how many degrees of separation there are between some of the support for Brown, and some of the Democrats in the House.

Government is NOT the Answer!

Last night, as my wife was listening to her favorite Christmas song, and trying to relax, I tore open a letter from my employer.

"Dear employee, your contribution to your basic healthcare coverage will be doubled starting january 1."
"What!?" I exclaimed as my wife shushed me and swayed around the kitchen to the music.
Thoughts were swirling around my head like mobile homes in a tornado. We are walking the financial tightrope as it is, will we be able to make it? Energy prices will double in 2011. Our school taxes just went up. What about inflation when the economy starts moving again, and all of this cheap money begins to circulate? The Bush tax cuts will expire next year. The Cap and Trade bill will cost me $1200 additional dollars each year directly, and who knows how much indirectly? And I am sure the government will find other ways to tax me, given we are saddled with record debt. Given the economy, it's not like I can expect a raise any time soon. I am just happy to have a job.

"Maybe a single-payer healthcare system is the answer..........."

"Calm down," my wife exclaimed smiling and brushing up against me,"you are killng my relaxation."

How do you think I feel. My relaxation is pretty much gone. Maybe a single-payer healthcare system is the answer. I said it, and I know I am not the only one.

But wait. Ok. Maybe I should take my wife's advice. Calm Down...Let's think about this.

Energy Prices will double. Why? Because government is mandating expensive "green" technologies and not allowing us to drill for our own natural resources, but even more because they have forced the energy companies to hold their prices down unnaturally for years and now in one fell swoop, all of those increases that should have happened more slowly and organicly will be a huge jolt to the system.

School Taxes have gone , that's government at work.

The potentially ridiculously high inflation rate caused by a Federal Reserve who lowered interest rates to ridiculously low levels so that A: The government could encourage home ownership for everyone (even those who could not afford it) and B: The government would be able to spend all of that cheap money on pet projects in the hopes that they could buy enough votes to stay in power.

The "Bush" tax cuts will expire. Why do tax cuts expire, but tax increases require new legislation to remove?

That Cap and Trade bill will cost me $1200 I don't have, and cause businesses to raise the prices to offset the cost of this legislation, so that will be great.

Is single-payer the answer? That would mean more government mandates, more government control, and more taxes. Isn't that what's shaking the tightrope already?

"Alright honey, what did you want to talk about?" My wife offered, as the last notes of the song trailed off.

"Nothing," I replied, "I have nothing left to say."