Leftist Economist Paul Krugman is Like the Cleveland Browns

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

Paul Krugman – Biggest Loser

My apologies to all you Browns fans.

For regular readers, you know I use a lot of football analogies. Well – here’s another.

Say you get permission from the NFL to create an expansion team – a brand new professional football franchise.

You, the owner, do your due diligence and hire who you feel is the best available Coach and General Manager.

The League office encourages other teams to aid your new franchise, lending their expertise and advice on various issues regarding football operations, free agency, the draft, etc.

One day you sit down with your new General Manager and Coach and start making calls to other teams for guidance. So whom do you call? And who do you not?

If you’re smart, you call the proven winners – starting with the New England Patriots (of course), then move on to the Steelers, Broncos, Packers, Cowboys and Giants. You seek out the proven winners – franchises that show up in the playoffs either every year, or at least most years.

Who you don’t call is the Cleveland Browns, the Buffalo Bills, or Jacksonville Jaguars. No offence, but why would you or anyone take advice on building a winning franchise from teams that rarely, if ever, win. read more

Where Did All the Money Go?

You May Want To Be Sitting Down For This One – Maybe Have a Drink Or Two Or Three…

 

by: the Common Constitutionalist

What is the refrain of the left whenever anyone suggests tax cuts? Naturally it is, “How are you going to pay for them?”

And what about cutting government spending? Well, Democrats will cry, in unison, that there is no where to cut. By cutting spending, we will be ripping food out of the mouths of needy children, or some such nonsense.

Remember this statement – “There Is No Where to Cut“.

And we can’t forget the “Tried and True”, tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires will only hurt the middle class.

As a rather obvious aside: paying for tax cuts bugs the crap out of me. Why should we have to “pay” for a tax cut? It’s our money in the first place. But the government naturally treats our money as theirs first, and if there is anything left over, which they claim there never is, they will consider giving it back to us, the people.

Anywho, speaking of whining about tax cuts, there’s this from just a few months ago. A column written by Steve Benen entitled, “The Magical Cost of Tax Cuts“. read more

Tax Cuts Won’t Work

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

In a recent interview at Yahoo! News, Amity Shlaes discussed her new book entitled “Coolidge”. The interview began with Yahoo news announcer Lauren Lyster, explaining that one of the big issues of Obama’s second term was tax reform and what could be learned from Calvin Coolidge.

Shlaes explained that: “The cutters; Reagan, Kennedy and going back to Coolidge all ended up with more money on the books due to extra business activity.”

These are irrefutable facts. Most every conservative and I have used the same argument for years. Cutting tax rates spur economic activity and growth, which leads to more jobs, more taxpayers and more revenue for the government. So let’s cut tax rates. It’s a proven winner. If you are a conservative, you know you’ve also use this argument.

Even Lindsey (woolsey) Graham, hardly a conservative, stated recently that flattening the tax code amongst other things could generate an additional $600 billion for the government coffers.

And there you have it. Graham has properly summed up the whole flawed tax cut argument in one sentence.

Well, I’m here to confess that I’ve been wrong. All these years of hammering tax rate reductions. I am man enough to admit it.

Now all you liberals reading this; don’t get too excited. To my conservative friends, buck up. I have not gone over to the dark side.

What I have had is an epiphany of sorts. It dawned on me that us freedom lovers have actually been arguing all these years for bigger government.

Think about just we’ve been advocating for; cutting taxes to get more tax revenue. Well, what will that additional revenue be used for? To grow government of course. So we are at least partially to blame for the growth of government.

In fact, we may be more to blame. Liberals and progressives are voted into office, raise taxes and ruin the economy. Then, what happens?
They are thrown out, conservatives are voted in, cut taxes, decrease regulations and voilà, increased revenue to the government. It doesn’t seem fair, does it?

In my humble opinion, the only way to save this country is not through tax rate reductions; capital gains rate cuts and the like. We know what will occur with their proper implementation; additional food for the beast.

We need to begin to advocate for smaller government. Decreasing the size of government is the only way of reining in spending at this point.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for keeping as much money as I can, but I think we are beyond that point.

By shrinking government’s size, the rest may take care of itself. It’s been too often proven that we can’t starve it. Government will always find more money somewhere.

 

Fiscal Cliff

Although I don’t agree will all the following points of this article, Mr. Livingston does make one think.

The Fiscal Cliff Is A Mirage, But A Real Cliff Is Ahead

by: Bob Livingston

The Fiscal Cliff Is A Mirage, But A Real Cliff Is Ahead

Don’t worry over the so-called fiscal cliff. It is just the latest in a long line of crises created by the elected sociopath class as another ploy to extract more wealth from the American people and further advance its agenda.

The cliff you need to worry about is the one we are barreling toward regardless of how the fiscal cliff negotiations turn out. It’s the hyperinflation cliff. It’s dead ahead. It has become unavoidable. The Nation is in default.bush tax cuts

The fiscal cliff is the term adopted to refer to the end of the misnamed George Bush tax cuts (which expire on Dec. 31 and because Obama extended them in 2010, so we will rightly call them Obama tax cuts) and sequestration ($1.2 trillion in cuts to social programs and defense spending that kick in on Jan. 1 barring a budget deal). It’s an unpalatable option to the political class because the political class hates cutting government — which reduces the power of the state — and uses a progressive tax rate to help reinforce the Hegelian dialectic.

President Barack Obama and his redistributionist minions have drawn a line in the sand over the misnamed George W. Bush tax cuts. Obama wants to end his own tax cuts on those making more than $200,000 ($250,000 for joint filers). This, despite his statement in 2010: “You don’t raise taxes in a recession.”

The United States remains in the old or has entered into a new recession. As John Williams of Shadowstats.com writes here1 (subscription required): “[T]here has been no recovery in economic activity, since the economy plunged from 2006/2007 into mid-2009, just ongoing low-level stagnation. Reporting of retail sales, production and durable Wall Streetgoods orders shows the economy turning down, once again, into what will become recognized as the second-dip of a double-dip recession, likely timed from third-quarter 2012. The reality remains that current economic woes are an ongoing part of protracted economic collapse, not the beginning of a new cycle.”

While the “official” phony-baloney government statistics show U.S. gross domestic product rising steadily since late 2009, real GDP growth remains stagnant, as it has since late 2009, and mirrors real unemployment, retail sales and housing starts.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has instituted QE3 to infinity. This will serve to prop up banks and the establishment, but it will hasten the demise of the dollar. (Watch the prices of gold and silver for confirmation.) It’s out-and-out theft from the American worker, saver and retiree.

QE3 and the unwillingness of the political class to make substantial and substantive cuts to government have prompted Williams to shorten his outer hyperinflation timeline from 2018 to 2014.

America is a warfare/welfare state2. A full 20 percent ($718 billion) of the Federal budget in 20113 was spent on perpetual war, defense and security-related international activities. “This portion of the budget is untouchable,” according the warfare wing of both parties.

Another 21 percent ($769 billion) went to Medicare, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). An additional 13 percent ($466 billion) went to safety-net programs like SSI, food stamps, school meals, housing and childcare assistance, etc.entitlements “These are untouchable,” according to redistributionist class of both parties.

And 20 percent ($731 billion) paid for Social Security, which provided retirement benefits to 35.6 million workers and other benefits to another 19.8 million spouses and children of retired workers, spouses and children of deceased workers, disabled workers and their eligible dependents. Social Security is considered an entitlement program, but it should not be since it is supposedly funded by money confiscated from workers — who had no say in the matter — to fund their retirement. The program was long ago looted by the elites and is the biggest Ponzi scheme in history. “Social Security is sacrosanct and untouchable,” leadership of both parties lie to you as they confiscate the funds faster than they pour in.

Obama and his redistributionist minions play the class-warfare game to perfection, pitting the poor against the so-called rich in order to steal more from the middle class. Their big lie is that the “rich” pay a lower percentage of income in taxes than the poor or middle class. The politics of envy —The-Politics-Of-Envy nasty, vile and green wealth envy that causes some to wish ill will or disaster on others who have enjoyed more success and has turned to hatred in the hearts of many — is advancing us toward total totalitarianism.

And now Republicans — supposedly the party of low taxes and smaller government — are joining the growing ranks of redistributionists and feeding the dialectic.

According to Internal Revenue Service data5, the highest average tax rates in America are paid by those making between $1.5 million and $2 million. Their tax rate is 25.1 percent. Tax rates then begin to fall on incomes greater than $2 million, as a greater percentage of income comes from capital gains and dividends. Still, those making more than $200 million pay an 18 percent tax rate on their adjusted gross income.

Those making $1 million to less than $1.5 million pay a 24.9 percent tax rate. Those making $500,000 to less than $1 million pay 24.1 percent, and those in the $200,000 to less than $500,000 range pay 19.6 percent. Tax rates below $200,000 break down as follows:

  • $100,000 to less than $200,000 incomes pay 12 percent.
  • $50,000 to less than $100,000 incomes pay 7.5 percent.
  • $30,000 to less than $50,000 incomes pay 4.8 percent.
  • Those making less than $30,000 paid no Federal taxes6 after deductions and credits.

Representative Tom Price (R-Ga.) says Obama’s plan to increase taxes on the rich will generate only enough revenue to fund the Federal government for eight days7. What he doesn’t tell you is that income taxes don’t fund the government. They are simply a wealth redistribution/information gathering tool used by the government.wealth redistribution

Price is one of the employees of the state who daily work to propagandize the masses on the idea that there is government debt and that money (sometimes called “revenue” to fool the people with doublespeak) to pay that debt must be confiscated from the masses. But there is no debt. Ask yourself this question: If you had a machine that would crank out an unlimited number of bills, would you have debt? Of course not. And that’s what government does.

Government debt is a world-class delusion. It is a tool used to justify theft and redistribution. And it has worked to perfection, pitting the have-nots against the haves, while the 1 percent (government workers and elected class) make out like the bandits they are. Meanwhile, many become ever more embittered over the idea that someone may have a greater pile of worthless green paper strips than they do.

It won’t be too much longer before people will be papering their walls with the green paper strips they’re so jealous of others for having. Study your history, and look to Weimar Germany as the example.

Workers were transporting wheelbarrows of cash to the store for bread, hoping to arrive before the prices changed. The price of coffee would triple between the time it was poured hyperinflationand the time it was consumed and the check arrived. Mothers prostituted themselves so their kids could be fed.

The next U.S. Great Depression is the cliff to be concerned with. Time is short. Store food (buying it now is also a hedge against inflation) and water, guns and ammunition, and personal hygiene items. Accumulate silver and gold. This Christmas, give silver as a gift that keeps giving — especially pre-1965 U.S. silver coins:

  • Dec. 1, 2000: silver $4.69/oz.; today: silver $34.28/oz.
  • Dec. 1, 2000: Dow Jones industrial average 14,053; today: DJIA 13,023.

Times will be especially difficult for the unprepared and those who depend upon the system for sustenance.

In Favor of Mitt

I was speaking to my son recently. He’s a High School student and has been complaining to me regarding the ignorance of his classmates. Most of them are Obama supporters but have no idea, other than repeating clichéd sound bites, why they believe what they claim to believe.

He suggested I request of the school, to call an assembly, where I stand up on stage and allow the students to ask me questions, so that I may dispel many of their liberal myths.

I suggested that we not go that route, for now, and that I may do some short, write-ups regarding these liberal talking-points.

Mitt Romney wants to shut down Planned Parenthood

Let’s look at Planned Parenthood. About one-third of Planned Parenthood’s funding comes from Taxpayer dollars. Even those taxpayers who don’t happen to want to pay for other people’s abortions are forced to contribute.

Mitt wants to stop providing taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood. They are a private company, kind of. He can’t and wouldn’t shut them down. If they can survive without government funds, like every other company, let them .

Well, what about women’s health issues? Mitt Romney doesn’t care about women. What about the cancer screenings and mammograms Planned Parenthood does? He will shut them down.

Well, Planned Parenthood does NOT do mammograms. They never did. They don’t have the equipment, training or licensing.

Well, what about cancer screenings? Romney wants to defund those.

What cancer screenings? The cancer screenings they speak of are for breast cancer only and they are only licensed and allowed to perform Level 1 screenings, which is the exact method used by women when they self-examine at home.

Planned Parenthood is an abortion clinic, pure and simple.

The creator and founder of Planned Parenthood was a woman named Margaret Sanger. What a wonderful woman she was, unless you were black.

She was a flaming racist and a Eugenist who wanted to start Planned Parenthood to kill off the black babies. She even spoke at Ku Klux Klan rallies. What a wonderful person and a great organization.

Mitt wants to Shut Down Public Television & Kill Big Bird 

PBS, the Public Broadcasting System, receives about 17% of its funds from the government. Actually the government doesn’t actually give them anything; you and I do, whether we want to or not.

Since Big Bird seems to be the headliner of this topic, let’s talk about Sesame Street.

Sesame Street cost about $17 million to produce a year.

Now let’s look at how much they make.  Make money? I thought they were PBS, a non-profit organization? Think again.

Marketing rights, you know, toys, games, etc., bring in about $1.3 billion a year for just Sesame Street and Barney alone and another $47 million in other licensing for Sesame Street.

So Sesame Street makes a boat-load of cash.

Those on the left are always saying they are for fairness, correct? Like Obama says, they just want to level the playing field.

Well, let’s think about this. How fair is it for one TV network to receive government money and the others not? Shouldn’t we then give an equal amount to Fox News? Would that not be fair?

Here’s another idea. It’s called “Revenue Sharing”. It works great in the NFL. Instead of taking our (taxpayer) money, why doesn’t Sesame Street level the playing field and give the extra money to the less fortunate programs that are struggling.

Mitt is going take money from the Middle Class to pay for his “Tax Cuts for the Rich”

First off, Mitt doesn’t wish to give the rich an additional income tax cut. He merely wishes to leave all the tax rates the same as they’ve been for more than a decade.

He does, however, wish to cut or eliminate some taxes. The estate tax for instance, or more aptly named, the death tax. You work your whole life, save your money, so that when you die you may pass that on to your loved ones, but the government swoops in and takes half. What did they do for that money? You already paid a ton of taxes on that money. How much do they think they deserve?

He wants to lower taxes on investments and capital gains.

Let me see a show of hands of everyone who works for, or who has been hired by a poor person. I thought not.

Here’s how it works. Companies and individuals make money. They don’t just hide the money in a mattress. They invest it and grow their businesses. As the business grows they must hire more people. If that money is being taken away by taxation, they can’t grow and thus they can’t hire.

Well, Mitt still can’t pay for all his tax cuts, right?

This is an assumption of a “Zero Sum Game”, as it were. “Zero Sum” just means for anything I receive, I must take it from you. The pot never gets larger.

Socialism is “Zero Sum”; capitalism is not.

Government gets it’s money by collecting taxes. If you lower tax rates and eliminate some taxes, the government will actually end up with more money. HUH?

Okay, the government lowers tax rates and get’s rid of some others. That leaves people with a lot more money. They can now invest more in their businesses, hiring more people. Every person they hire is a taxpayer. The more taxpayers you have, the more taxes are collected, the more money coming in. The pot just got a lot larger.

Trickle Down and Tax Cuts

By Walter E. Williams

Dr. Thomas Sowell’s “‘Trickle Down Theory’ and ‘Tax Cuts for the Rich'” has just been published by the Hoover Institution. Having read this short paper, the conclusion you must reach is that the term “trickle down theory” is simply a tool of charlatans and political hustlers.

Sowell states that “no such theory has been found in even the most voluminous and learned histories of economic theories.” That’s from a scholar who has published extensively in the history of economic thought. Several years ago, Sowell, in his syndicated column, challenged anyone to name an economist from any economic school of thought who had actually advocated a “trickle down” theory. To date, no one has quoted any economist who ever advocated such a theory. Trickle down is a nonexistent theory. Those who use it simply argue against a caricature rather than confront an argument actually made.

President Barack Obama recently criticized Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan for trying to sell a tax plan, which he called “trickledown snake oil.” Criticizing tax cuts as trickle down is a way not to confront the argument; however, there’s empirical evidence about the effects of tax cuts. Sowell shows that during the Warren Harding administration, in 1921, Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon advocated tax rate cuts, which were enacted into law by Congress. Afterward, there was rising output; unemployment plummeted; and the resulting higher income produced greater federal tax revenues, even though the tax rate had been lowered (see: The Great Depression). There were somewhat similar results in later years after high tax rates were cut during the John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations.

The facts about the 1920s tax rate cuts are unmistakably clear for those who bother to check the facts. In 1921, when the tax rate on people earning more than $100,000 a year was 73 percent, the federal government collected a little more than $700 million in income taxes, of which 30 percent was paid by those earning more than $100,000. By 1929, after the tax rate had been cut to 24 percent on incomes higher than $100,000, the federal government collected more than $1 billion in income taxes, of which 65 percent was collected from those with incomes higher than $100,000.

In 1962, Democratic President John F. Kennedy pointed out that “it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.” Both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush made similar arguments, and the tax rate cuts had the effect of stimulating economic growth while increasing federal tax revenue and shifting a greater percentage of the tax burden on to wealthier individuals.

One very insightful part of Sowell’s paper is the discussion about what Mellon called the “gesture of taxing the rich” — namely, tax-exempt securities that he tried unsuccessfully to put an end to. Tax-exempt securities and other tax breaks are valuable tools in the politics of class warfare and envy. Politicians have it both ways. They get votes by raising taxes on the wealthy — or threatening to do so — and at the same time provide the wealthy with a way out of high taxes through tax-exempt securities. This explains how President Obama can raise tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions from Hollywood millionaires and Wall Street’s rich and powerful. “Tax cuts for the rich” demagoguery is simply the height of deceit perpetrated on gullible people and useful idiots.

You can bet that the White House has people reading every bit of the news, including this column and Dr. Sowell’s article. You can bet some people in the news media will read it, as well. Despite the facts that Sowell has marshaled, they will continue to use trickle down theory and “tax cuts for the rich” demagoguery, even though they now have hard evidence to the contrary, because they can count on widespread gullibility and inability to do critical thinking.

‘Islamist Firster’ President not What he Claimed

By Charles Hurt, The Washington Times:

GOLAN HEIGHTS — Surveying the live minefields, cratered roads and mortar-pocked concrete buildings along the border here between Syria and Israel, it is hard not to be reminded of the historic and monumental disappointment President Obama has been.

When he was campaigning to become the most powerful man in the last standing superpower on Earth, he spoke passionately about changing the world, restoring America’s greatness and bringing more peace and fairness to everyone.

In both foreign and domestic matters, Mr. Obama had unique credibility to change things as few presidents ever had.

Despite his background as a liberal street organizer, he campaigned on tax cuts and personal
responsibility and preached that the government simply cannot be the answer to every problem. Republicans would have no choice but to go along with an agenda to shrink the tax burden and get the federal government out of our everyday lives.

Instead, Mr. Obama has devoted his administration to raising taxes, adding to the byzantine structure of the federal government, and has created a whole new massive bureaucracy he claims really will cure our every little boo-boo.

As for the rest of the world, Mr. Obama promised to devote himself to healing the grave injustices and halting the atrocities that have afflicted the world since the rise of radical, violent jihadism. With his Muslim roots, Mr. Obama was positioned better than any leader on the global stage to speak with authority to radical Islamists and finally bring about permanent peace.

Instead, Mr. Obama chose to unilaterally alienate perhaps our most strategically important ally in the world and do all he can to cozy up to the very

people who are dedicated to destroying not only Israel, but America as well.

Leading Democrats have been in the news lately sliming Americans who stick up for Israel as being “Israel Firsters.” Well, Mr. Obama has become an “Islamist Firster.”

Since becoming president, he has not once visited our greatest ally in the region. Rather, he has gone to places like Cairo to tell the Muslim world how much he likes it. He also stunningly trashed the oath of office he took by saying it is “part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

And, of course, he apologized for the “sexuality” and “mindless violence” from the West permeating the Internet. But Internet porn and creepy videos are little match for virginity tests, stoning women and beheading Jews — all for the fun of it.

When Mr. Obama finally addressed Israel, he shockingly said the tiny country should further retrench so its well-armed enemies can retake high ground from which to fire rockets at Israelis and move closer so they can hit major population centers such as Tel Aviv.

Such a twisted and half-baked view of justice is bad enough in a president. But things are about to get much more terrifying when Iran finally gets its hands on a nuclear warhead, which appears likely to happen in a matter of months.

It will be a very complicated situation because the most powerful man in the last remaining superpower on the planet is an Islamist Firster

Advertising Government

by: the Common Constitutionalist

We’ve all heard those wonderfully inspiring & heartfelt radio & TV ads.

They promote ways to help us manage our lives.

We all know of the Ad Council. It was originally named, “The War Advertising Council”, the brain child of the great, big government progressive, Franklin Roosevelt. You know, Newt Gingrich’s favorite president.

War Advertising Council Ad

 

The Ad Council is the nation’s largest developer of PSA campaigns on behalf of government agencies and non-profit organizations, most of whom get at least some funding from said government. So basically, from the government.

Where would we be without our nanny overlords and the Ad Council?

How would we survive without the Feds telling us men how to be a good fathers.

I personally would never think of taking my children to the forest without the U.S. Forestry Service paying for an ad, using my tax money, telling me to go to the forest.

I never used to monitor my children’s internet use. Then I heard the government, via the Ad Council, tell me I should. Shazam!

I’ve been eating rocks & dirt for decades. Then I heard Mrs. Obama say, I should be eating vegetables. Talk about feeling stupid for all those years. Thanks Michelle!

How much do we (our government) spend every year on these ads? I have no idea. No matter where I look or whom I call, I can’t find out, but I’ll bet it’s astronomical.

I am not saying (yes I am) the things they talk about in their ads are not important to some, but it is most certainly not the government’s job to pay for disseminating that information. Maybe it is. Let me check my Constitution. Nope, wasn’t in there.

Just browse The Ad Council website & you’ll see almost all their ad campaigns are either directly or indirectly sponsored by the Feds.

The intent of this segment is not to judge whether or not these ads are useful (they are not, by the way). I’m simply questioning the right our government has to confiscate our money & use it this way. It’s absurd on its face.

This is not the governments’ function. We can afford to pay for ads telling people not to drive drunk (Gee, why didn’t I think of that?), but we can’t afford tax cuts?

I can imagine Washington, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison et al sitting around saying, “Ok, we’ve won our independence from an oppressive government. What’s the first order of business?”

Franklin stands up and exclaims, ” Why don’t we allocate our new governments funds for me to print a pamphlet. I could explain to our moronic citizenry, how to properly fasten their children into buggies.”

I’m sure that’s what the founders envisioned.