Talk about leading from behind. We used to think it shameful that Obama would lead from behind, by letting other world leaders do whatever heavy lifting needed to be done (not that much ever had to be done), and then Obama would just hop on the bandwagon –being praised by leftists for it.
by: the Common Constitutionalist
Recently Mark Levin suggested, as has Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and even little old me, to allow the liberals of this country to pick the states of their choosing and form their own leftist nation – The Liberal States of the World”.
Mark suggested that they pick 10 states, all move there, and have a ball. They can even pick the nicest states – the coastal ones, although with the sure onset of global warming, maybe not. We wouldn’t want all those lefties to be washed out to sea.
So let’s just say they will occupy both coasts and we conservatives will move into the crappy flyover states. We’ll even throw in Washington DC as a bonus.
They would now be free to do anything they want – enact any legislation – raise any tax – mandate any regulation and pack any court, with no unreasonable conservatives to stop them with their religious dogma.
They may rewrite the Constitution, or better yet, scrap the whole thing and replace it with FDR’s Second Bill of Rights.
If you’re unfamiliar with them or need a review, here are a few of the real standouts:
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
The right of every family to a decent home.
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
The right to adequate protection from economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.
The right to a good education.
by Wynton Hall & the Common Constitutionalist
President Barack Obama has proposed raising taxes on the rich to put America’s fiscal house in order, but critics say federal spending is so massive that the wealthy don’t have enough money to cover the nation’s unprecedented debt.
In an interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) said President Barack Obama’s plan to raise taxes on the wealthy would only generate enough revenue to fund the federal government for eight days.
“The president’s plan to increase taxes on the upper two percent covers the spending by this federal government not for eight years, not for eight months, not for eight weeks but for eight days. Eight days only,” said Mr. Price. “It’s not a real solution. So, again, I’m puzzled by an administration that seems to be more interested in raising tax rates than in gaining economic vitality.”
The problem is that the rich don’t have enough money to put so much as a dent in America’s $16 trillion national debt. “If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion,” writes John Stossel. “That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode.”
Still, Mr. Obama’s supporters persist in proposing tax hikes on the wealthy. On Sunday, billionaire Warren Buffett proposed a minimum tax for America’s top earners. “We need Congress, right now, to enact a minimum tax on high incomes. I would suggest 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above that.”
There’s just one problem with such an approach, says author Mark Steyn:
If you took every single penny that Warren Buffett has, it’d pay for 4-1/2 days of the US government. This tax-the-rich won’t work. The problem here is the government is way bigger than even the capacity of the rich to sustain it. The Buffett Rule would raise $3.2 billion a year, and take 514 years just to pay off Obama’s 2011 budget deficit.
Indeed, even Mr. Buffett seems to concede that he and the president’s “soak the rich” proposals are more an act of political theater designed to generate an emotional response than serious solutions: Mr. Buffett told Matt Lauer he believes his proposal would boost the “morale of the middle class.”
From the Common Constitutionalist: The facts are the facts. No matter how much spin Obama puts on it. The republicans, not wanting to try to educate the public, are jumping on the “Revenue” bandwagon. (Always remember, revenue equals tax increases).
Moderate republican Lindsey Graham told ABC’s This Week on Sunday, “Republicans should put revenue on the table. We’re this far in debt. We don’t generate enough revenue.” Rep. Cole said on Tuesday, “I think we ought to take the 98 percent deal right now,” and allow taxes to go up for higher income earners.
Rep. Peter King told NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, “[The] bottom line is we cannot have sequestration. We can’t go off a fiscal cliff. We have to show the world we’re adults. … I think everything should be on the table. I myself am opposed to tax increases.”
It appears to me Obama and the democrats have already won. A crisis has been created, on purpose, I might add, and the republicans will do what they always do. Whether it’s the end of the world scenario of TARP, the stimulus, the debt ceiling or this. They keep giving ground and the dems keep taking.
Let me put this “Tax the Rich” nonsense into further perspective. The federal government currently spends 9.5 billion dollars per day. Are you getting the magnitude of that number.
Now lets reinject John Stossel’s number. If we took every dime the rich makes it would total $616 billion. That would fund the government for about 65 days. What do you do on the 66th day? You’ve already taken all the income.
Let’s put some more perspective on it. We all heard about the huge Powerball jackpot this past week. Those 2 lucky winners are now rich beyond their wildest dreams. The cash payout for each is about $160 million give or take. That’s a lot of money unless one is trying to run the government. That whopping $160 million could run the federal government for less than a 1/2 hour. How’s that for some perspective.
This problem cannot and never will be solved until the size of government is slashed. Not just the fat trimmed, but cut to the bone. The only way to do that is to starve it of revenue.
We are going over the fiscal cliff, one way or the other. It’s just a question of when at this point.
You best prepared.
by: Walter E. Williams
Our nation is rapidly approaching a point from which there’s little chance to avoid a financial collapse. The heart of our problem can be seen as a tragedy of the commons. That’s a set of circumstances when something is commonly owned and individuals acting rationally in their own self-interest produce a set of results that’s inimical to everyone’s long-term interest. Let’s look at an example of the tragedy of the commons phenomenon and then apply it to our national problem.
Imagine there are 100 cattlemen all having an equal right to graze their herds on 1,000 acres of commonly owned grassland. The rational self-interested response of each cattleman is to have the largest herd that he can afford. Each cattleman pursing similar self-interests will produce results not in any of the cattlemen’s long-term interest — overgrazing, soil erosion and destruction of the land’s usefulness. Even if they all recognize the dangers, does it pay for any one cattleman to cut the size of his herd? The short answer is no because he would bear the cost of having a smaller herd while the other cattlemen gain at his expense. In the long term, they all lose because the land will be overgrazed and made useless.
We can think of the federal budget as a commons to which each of our 535 congressmen and the president have access. Like the cattlemen, each congressman and the president want to get as much out of the federal budget as possible for their constituents. Political success depends upon “bringing home the bacon.” Spending is popular, but taxes to finance the spending are not. The tendency is for spending to rise and its financing to be concealed through borrowing and inflation.
Does it pay for an individual congressman to say, “This spending is unconstitutional and ruining our nation, and I’ll have no part of it; I will refuse a $500 million federal grant to my congressional district”? The answer is no because he would gain little or nothing, plus the federal budget wouldn’t be reduced by $500 million. Other congressmen would benefit by having $500 million more for their districts.
What about the constituents of a principled congressman? If their congressman refuses unconstitutional spending, it doesn’t mean that they pay lower federal income taxes. All that it means is constituents of some other congressmen get the money while the nation spirals toward financial ruin, and they wouldn’t be spared from that ruin because their congressman refused to participate in unconstitutional spending.
What we’re witnessing in Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and other parts of Europe is a direct result of their massive spending to accommodate the welfare state. A greater number of people are living off government welfare programs than are paying taxes. Government debt in Greece is 160 percent of gross domestic product. The other percentages of GDP are 120 in Italy, 104 in Ireland and 106 in Portugal. As a result of this debt and the improbability of their ever paying it, their credit ratings either have reached or are close to reaching junk bond status.
Here’s the question for us: Is the U.S. moving in a direction toward or away from the troubled EU nations? It turns out that our national debt, which was 35 percent of GDP during the 1970s, is now 106 percent of GDP, a level not seen since World War II’s 122 percent. That debt, plus our more than $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, has led Standard & Poor’s to downgrade our credit rating from AAA to AA+, and the agency is keeping the outlook at “negative” as a result of its having little confidence that Congress will take on the politically sensitive job of tackling the same type of entitlement that has turned Europe into a basket case.
I am all too afraid that Benjamin Franklin correctly saw our nation’s destiny when he said, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”