Wednesday, March 3, 2010

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?

Saturday, February 27, 2010

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. 

 

Monday, February 1, 2010

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.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

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?

Thursday, January 21, 2010

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.