"Whatever the results of the drama currently playing itself out in the political theater, the nation faces a fundamental decision that cannot be made by politicians hopelessly caught up in the government-addicted premise of that drama's exposition of the tragic flaw in the currently accepted way of doing politics.
It must be made by the people.
They alone can decide to reject the assumption of government dependency imposed by the New Deal syndrome.
They alone can decide to reject the false notion that it's the government's job to assure the welfare of individuals, when in fact government exists only to serve the common good.
They alone can reassert their determination to live as a people who accept the God-ordained responsibilities that give them the right to care for each other as individuals, in natural and voluntary communities free of pre-emptive government dictatorship.
They alone can assert and re-establish the integrity and liberty of those institutions of family, faith and economic enterprise that are the God-endowed natural means of fulfilling this responsibility.
They alone can reclaim control of the income and other material resources required to do so.
Americans will not break the habit of government spending, borrowing and taxation until they renounce the temptations of government solicitude and dependency and the "bribe me" party politics that connives to exploit them.
They will not have confidence enough to resist those deceptive temptations until they rediscover the resources of faith and moral courage that mainly arise from living out the motto that was and ought still to be the openly flaunted secret of their economic aspiration, the slogan that placed their trust in God, not government."
Alan Keyes
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Sunday, June 26, 2011
KELLY SIEGLER SECURES JUSTICE AT ALL COST FOR ANTHONY GRAVES
Texas Governor Rick Perry's support of House Bill 417 along with Texas state Senator Rodney Ellis' amendment thereto, facilitated the long overdue compensation for former death row inmate Anthony Graves.
But for the "Justice at all Cost" philosophy and work ethic of former Harris County Assistant District Attorney Kelly Siegler; the "Making Amends" editorial in today's Houston Chronicle on point would not have been possible.
Graves is but one of the many victims Siegler's career has been dedicated to seek justice for without apology or reservation.
Winning for Siegler is not about "the Lykos scalp counters", it is not about the red neck rogue prosecutors who covet convictions as wins regardless as to the issue of actual guilt or innocence, it is not about the media's agenda............."winning at all cost" for Kelly Siegler is NOT about THAT kind of "justice"--- it is about REAL JUSTICE.
We can require that all criminal activity be wrapped in a tidy little box with a simple bow.
It would be nice if all witnesses were honest; crime scenes were never tainted; DNA evidence was always plentiful and pure; prosecutors, defense counsel and investigators were always ethical/apolitical/qualified and diligent; judges and juries always followed the law and charges were appropriate.......in the alternative, we can strive for the ideal but not capitulate to the absurdity of naivete.
Anthony Graves, David Temple and Dror Goldberg were each accused by the State of Texas of commiting gruesome killings.
Each case was uniquly complicated lacking the neat little bow and tidy box too many folks require to proceed.
Each would require an incredible ability and dedication by the prosecutor to achieve a just outcome...........both for the victims and for the State of Texas.
There will always be those who doubt David Temple or Dror Goldberg are truly guilty or that Anthony Graves is truly innocent. That is because these cases are not slam dunk whales with harpoons either way. These are the type of cases that REQUIRE that special character and ability that makes a prosecutor a Rock Star for justice.....political fallout be damned.
Three (3) tough cases and one (1) tough prosecutor.............two (2) convictions and one (1) exoneration as Texas Rock Star Prosecutor Kelly Siegler does what's right because it is the right thing to do; and THAT is what makes a winner.
"Counting scalps" might be the measure of winning if your quarterback is Pat Lykos; but REAL justice is not a game and REAL prosecutors know that.
I challenge Brian Rogers and the Houston Chronicle to interview Mr. Anthony Graves on the issue of Kelly Siegler as a prosecutor.................
But for the "Justice at all Cost" philosophy and work ethic of former Harris County Assistant District Attorney Kelly Siegler; the "Making Amends" editorial in today's Houston Chronicle on point would not have been possible.
Graves is but one of the many victims Siegler's career has been dedicated to seek justice for without apology or reservation.
Winning for Siegler is not about "the Lykos scalp counters", it is not about the red neck rogue prosecutors who covet convictions as wins regardless as to the issue of actual guilt or innocence, it is not about the media's agenda............."winning at all cost" for Kelly Siegler is NOT about THAT kind of "justice"--- it is about REAL JUSTICE.
We can require that all criminal activity be wrapped in a tidy little box with a simple bow.
It would be nice if all witnesses were honest; crime scenes were never tainted; DNA evidence was always plentiful and pure; prosecutors, defense counsel and investigators were always ethical/apolitical/qualified and diligent; judges and juries always followed the law and charges were appropriate.......in the alternative, we can strive for the ideal but not capitulate to the absurdity of naivete.
Anthony Graves, David Temple and Dror Goldberg were each accused by the State of Texas of commiting gruesome killings.
Each case was uniquly complicated lacking the neat little bow and tidy box too many folks require to proceed.
Each would require an incredible ability and dedication by the prosecutor to achieve a just outcome...........both for the victims and for the State of Texas.
There will always be those who doubt David Temple or Dror Goldberg are truly guilty or that Anthony Graves is truly innocent. That is because these cases are not slam dunk whales with harpoons either way. These are the type of cases that REQUIRE that special character and ability that makes a prosecutor a Rock Star for justice.....political fallout be damned.
Three (3) tough cases and one (1) tough prosecutor.............two (2) convictions and one (1) exoneration as Texas Rock Star Prosecutor Kelly Siegler does what's right because it is the right thing to do; and THAT is what makes a winner.
"Counting scalps" might be the measure of winning if your quarterback is Pat Lykos; but REAL justice is not a game and REAL prosecutors know that.
I challenge Brian Rogers and the Houston Chronicle to interview Mr. Anthony Graves on the issue of Kelly Siegler as a prosecutor.................
Thursday, May 26, 2011
OBAMA'S UNSPOKEN RE-ELECTION EDGE
By SHELBY STEELE
Many of the Republican presidential hopefuls should be able to beat President Obama in 2012. This president has a track record now and, thus, many vulnerabilities. If he is not our "worst president," as Donald Trump would have it, his sweeping domestic initiatives—especially his stimulus package and health-care reform—were so jerry-built and high-handed that they generated a virtual revolution in America's normally subdued middle class.
The president's success in having Osama bin Laden killed is an exception to a pattern of excruciatingly humble and hesitant leadership abroad. Mr. Obama has been deeply ambivalent about the application of American power, as if a shameful "neocolonialism" attends every U.S. action in the world. In Libya he seems actually to want American power to diminish altogether.
This formula of shrinking American power abroad while expanding government power at home confuses and disappoints many Americans. Before bin Laden, 69% of Americans believed the country was on the wrong track, according to an Ipsos survey. A recent Zogby poll found that only 38% of respondents believed Mr. Obama deserved a second term, while 55% said they wanted someone new.
And yet Republicans everywhere ask, "Who do we have to beat him?" In head-to-head matchups, Mr. Obama beats all of the Republican hopefuls in most polls.
The problem Mr. Obama poses for Republicans is that there has always been a disconnect between his actual performance and his appeal. If Hurricane Katrina irretrievably stained George W. Bush, the BP oil spill left no lasting mark on this president. Mr. Obama's utter confusion in the face of the "Arab spring" has nudged his job-approval numbers down, but not his likability numbers, which Gallup has at a respectable 47.6%. In the mainstream media there has been a willingness to forgive this president his mistakes, to see him as an innocent in an impossible world. Why?
There have really always been two Barack Obamas: the mortal man and the cultural icon. If the actual man is distinctly ordinary, even a little flat and humorless, the cultural icon is quite extraordinary. The problem for Republicans is that they must run against both the man and the myth. In 2008, few knew the man and Republicans were walloped by the myth. Today the man is much clearer, and yet the myth remains compelling.
What gives Mr. Obama a cultural charisma that most Republicans cannot have? First, he represents a truly inspiring American exceptionalism: He is the first black in the entire history of Western civilization to lead a Western nation—and the most powerful nation in the world at that. And so not only is he the most powerful black man in recorded history, but he reached this apex only through the good offices of the great American democracy.
Thus his presidency flatters America to a degree that no white Republican can hope to compete with. He literally validates the American democratic experiment, if not the broader Enlightenment that gave birth to it.
He is also an extraordinary personification of the American Dream: Even someone from a race associated with slavery can rise to the presidency. Whatever disenchantment may surround the man, there is a distinct national pride in having elected him.
All of this adds up to a powerful racial impressionism that works against today's field of Republican candidates. This is the impressionism that framed Sen. John McCain in 2008 as a political and cultural redundancy—yet another older white male presuming to lead the nation.
The point is that anyone who runs against Mr. Obama will be seen through the filter of this racial impressionism, in which white skin is redundant and dark skin is fresh and exceptional. This is the new cultural charisma that the president has introduced into American politics.
Today this charisma is not as strong for Mr. Obama. The mere man and the actual president has not lived up to his billing as a historical breakthrough. Still, the Republican field is framed and—as the polls show—diminished by his mere presence in office, which makes America the most socially evolved nation in the world. Moreover, the mainstream media coddle Mr. Obama—the man—out of its identification with his exceptionalism.
Conversely, the media hold the president's exceptionalism against Republicans. Here is Barack Obama, evidence of a new and progressive America. Here are the Republicans, a cast of largely white males, looking peculiarly unevolved. Add to this the Republicans' quite laudable focus on deficit reduction and spending cuts, and they can be made to look like a gaggle of scolding accountants.
How can the GOP combat the president's cultural charisma? It will have to make vivid the yawning gulf between Obama the flattering icon and Obama the confused and often overwhelmed president. Applaud the exceptionalism he represents, but deny him the right to ride on it as a kind of affirmative action.
A president who is both Democratic and black effectively gives the infamous race card to the entire left: Attack our president and you are a racist. To thwart this, Republicans will have to break through the barrier of political correctness.
Mr. McCain let himself be intimidated by Obama's cultural charisma, threatening to fire any staff member who even used the candidate's middle name. Donald Trump shot to the head of the Republican line by focusing on Mr. Obama as a president, calling him our "worst" president. I carry no brief for Mr. Trump, but his sudden success makes a point: Another kind of charisma redounds to those willing to challenge political correctness—those unwilling to be in thrall to the president's cultural charisma.
Lastly, there must be a Republican message of social exceptionalism. America has more social mobility than any heterogeneous society in history. Isn't there a great Republican opportunity to be had in urging minorities to at last move out of their long era of protest—in which militancy toward the very society they struggled to join was the way ahead? Aren't Republicans uniquely positioned to offer minorities a liberation from both dependency and militancy?
In other words, isn't there a fresh new social idealism implicit in conservative principles? Why not articulate it and fight with it in the political arena? Such a message would show our president as unevolved in his social thinking—oh so 1965. The theme: Barack Obama believes in government; we believe in you.
Mr. Steele is a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. Among his books is "White Guilt" (Harper/Collins, 2007).
Many of the Republican presidential hopefuls should be able to beat President Obama in 2012. This president has a track record now and, thus, many vulnerabilities. If he is not our "worst president," as Donald Trump would have it, his sweeping domestic initiatives—especially his stimulus package and health-care reform—were so jerry-built and high-handed that they generated a virtual revolution in America's normally subdued middle class.
The president's success in having Osama bin Laden killed is an exception to a pattern of excruciatingly humble and hesitant leadership abroad. Mr. Obama has been deeply ambivalent about the application of American power, as if a shameful "neocolonialism" attends every U.S. action in the world. In Libya he seems actually to want American power to diminish altogether.
This formula of shrinking American power abroad while expanding government power at home confuses and disappoints many Americans. Before bin Laden, 69% of Americans believed the country was on the wrong track, according to an Ipsos survey. A recent Zogby poll found that only 38% of respondents believed Mr. Obama deserved a second term, while 55% said they wanted someone new.
And yet Republicans everywhere ask, "Who do we have to beat him?" In head-to-head matchups, Mr. Obama beats all of the Republican hopefuls in most polls.
The problem Mr. Obama poses for Republicans is that there has always been a disconnect between his actual performance and his appeal. If Hurricane Katrina irretrievably stained George W. Bush, the BP oil spill left no lasting mark on this president. Mr. Obama's utter confusion in the face of the "Arab spring" has nudged his job-approval numbers down, but not his likability numbers, which Gallup has at a respectable 47.6%. In the mainstream media there has been a willingness to forgive this president his mistakes, to see him as an innocent in an impossible world. Why?
There have really always been two Barack Obamas: the mortal man and the cultural icon. If the actual man is distinctly ordinary, even a little flat and humorless, the cultural icon is quite extraordinary. The problem for Republicans is that they must run against both the man and the myth. In 2008, few knew the man and Republicans were walloped by the myth. Today the man is much clearer, and yet the myth remains compelling.
What gives Mr. Obama a cultural charisma that most Republicans cannot have? First, he represents a truly inspiring American exceptionalism: He is the first black in the entire history of Western civilization to lead a Western nation—and the most powerful nation in the world at that. And so not only is he the most powerful black man in recorded history, but he reached this apex only through the good offices of the great American democracy.
Thus his presidency flatters America to a degree that no white Republican can hope to compete with. He literally validates the American democratic experiment, if not the broader Enlightenment that gave birth to it.
He is also an extraordinary personification of the American Dream: Even someone from a race associated with slavery can rise to the presidency. Whatever disenchantment may surround the man, there is a distinct national pride in having elected him.
All of this adds up to a powerful racial impressionism that works against today's field of Republican candidates. This is the impressionism that framed Sen. John McCain in 2008 as a political and cultural redundancy—yet another older white male presuming to lead the nation.
The point is that anyone who runs against Mr. Obama will be seen through the filter of this racial impressionism, in which white skin is redundant and dark skin is fresh and exceptional. This is the new cultural charisma that the president has introduced into American politics.
Today this charisma is not as strong for Mr. Obama. The mere man and the actual president has not lived up to his billing as a historical breakthrough. Still, the Republican field is framed and—as the polls show—diminished by his mere presence in office, which makes America the most socially evolved nation in the world. Moreover, the mainstream media coddle Mr. Obama—the man—out of its identification with his exceptionalism.
Conversely, the media hold the president's exceptionalism against Republicans. Here is Barack Obama, evidence of a new and progressive America. Here are the Republicans, a cast of largely white males, looking peculiarly unevolved. Add to this the Republicans' quite laudable focus on deficit reduction and spending cuts, and they can be made to look like a gaggle of scolding accountants.
How can the GOP combat the president's cultural charisma? It will have to make vivid the yawning gulf between Obama the flattering icon and Obama the confused and often overwhelmed president. Applaud the exceptionalism he represents, but deny him the right to ride on it as a kind of affirmative action.
A president who is both Democratic and black effectively gives the infamous race card to the entire left: Attack our president and you are a racist. To thwart this, Republicans will have to break through the barrier of political correctness.
Mr. McCain let himself be intimidated by Obama's cultural charisma, threatening to fire any staff member who even used the candidate's middle name. Donald Trump shot to the head of the Republican line by focusing on Mr. Obama as a president, calling him our "worst" president. I carry no brief for Mr. Trump, but his sudden success makes a point: Another kind of charisma redounds to those willing to challenge political correctness—those unwilling to be in thrall to the president's cultural charisma.
Lastly, there must be a Republican message of social exceptionalism. America has more social mobility than any heterogeneous society in history. Isn't there a great Republican opportunity to be had in urging minorities to at last move out of their long era of protest—in which militancy toward the very society they struggled to join was the way ahead? Aren't Republicans uniquely positioned to offer minorities a liberation from both dependency and militancy?
In other words, isn't there a fresh new social idealism implicit in conservative principles? Why not articulate it and fight with it in the political arena? Such a message would show our president as unevolved in his social thinking—oh so 1965. The theme: Barack Obama believes in government; we believe in you.
Mr. Steele is a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. Among his books is "White Guilt" (Harper/Collins, 2007).
Friday, May 6, 2011
IS THE COMMERCE CLAUSE JUST A POLITICAL PAWN FOR LABOR UNIONS?
In response to allegations against Boeing presented to the federal labor board (NLRB) by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the NLRB has filed a complaint against Boeing accusing them of retaliating against a local union by opening a production line in the right to work state of South Carolina.
The complaint alleges that the aerospace giant made "coercive statements" regarding union-led strikes, and then retaliated by transferring its second line to the non-union South Carolina facility. As evidence, the NLRB noted that a Boeing executive said in an interview that an overriding factor in going to South Carolina -- a right-to-work state where unions cannot force employees to join -- was a desire to avoid disruptions associated with union strikes.
NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon cited Boeing executives' comments on their desire to avoid strikes in claiming the company violated federal rules.
Soloman stated, "A worker's right to strike is a fundamental right guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act. We also recognize the rights of employers to make business decisions based on their economic interests, but they must do so within the law."
The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which initially filed the allegation against Boeing with the NLRB in March of last year, said in a statement that the South Carolina decision was aimed at the union.
A hearing in the case is scheduled before an administrative law judge on June 14, 2011 in Seattle to determine whether or not the U.S. Government can preclude a PRIVATE U.S corporation from moving one of its own PRIVATE production lines from one state to another..........................The question is as ridiculous as U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder going forward (with President Obama's blessings) with the prosecution of the C.I.A. agents responsible for the enhanced interrogation that led to the location and dispatchment of Usama bin Laden.
The complaint alleges that the aerospace giant made "coercive statements" regarding union-led strikes, and then retaliated by transferring its second line to the non-union South Carolina facility. As evidence, the NLRB noted that a Boeing executive said in an interview that an overriding factor in going to South Carolina -- a right-to-work state where unions cannot force employees to join -- was a desire to avoid disruptions associated with union strikes.
NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon cited Boeing executives' comments on their desire to avoid strikes in claiming the company violated federal rules.
Soloman stated, "A worker's right to strike is a fundamental right guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act. We also recognize the rights of employers to make business decisions based on their economic interests, but they must do so within the law."
The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which initially filed the allegation against Boeing with the NLRB in March of last year, said in a statement that the South Carolina decision was aimed at the union.
A hearing in the case is scheduled before an administrative law judge on June 14, 2011 in Seattle to determine whether or not the U.S. Government can preclude a PRIVATE U.S corporation from moving one of its own PRIVATE production lines from one state to another..........................The question is as ridiculous as U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder going forward (with President Obama's blessings) with the prosecution of the C.I.A. agents responsible for the enhanced interrogation that led to the location and dispatchment of Usama bin Laden.
Monday, May 2, 2011
U.S. NAVY SEAL TEAM 6 WINS AT ALL COST.........AMERICA IS GRATEFUL
CONGRATULATIONS TO THE SUPER ELITE WARRIORS OF ST6!!!
Special Forces are just that......SPECIAL!
There are certain people who's character is so flawed, who's morals are so depraved and who's actions are so vile that they need to be removed from society regardless how powerful or cunning they might be.........and that is why we need U.S. Navy SEALs.
Thank goodness this SEAL mission was not undermined by the political correctness which doomed "Operation Redwing" on that fateful summer day of 2005. The team deployed for that tragic mission on the mountainous border of Afghanistan and Pakistan ended with a lone surviving SEAL and the largest number of SEALs killed in action since their inception.
On 1 May 2011, political correctness was AWOL. Human shields were no match for common sense. There were no U. S. Navy SEALs killed in action. Usama Bin Laden and his cowardly crew are dead.
Bin Laden will will spend his eternity covered in whale shit at the bottom of the sea; NOT with seventy (70) virgins in Allah-ville.
U.S. Navy SEALs have the courage, conviction and ability to assure that justice at all costs is attainable anywhere on the globe......that's what makes a winner.
GO NAVY and GOD bless our brave heroes!
Special Forces are just that......SPECIAL!
There are certain people who's character is so flawed, who's morals are so depraved and who's actions are so vile that they need to be removed from society regardless how powerful or cunning they might be.........and that is why we need U.S. Navy SEALs.
Thank goodness this SEAL mission was not undermined by the political correctness which doomed "Operation Redwing" on that fateful summer day of 2005. The team deployed for that tragic mission on the mountainous border of Afghanistan and Pakistan ended with a lone surviving SEAL and the largest number of SEALs killed in action since their inception.
On 1 May 2011, political correctness was AWOL. Human shields were no match for common sense. There were no U. S. Navy SEALs killed in action. Usama Bin Laden and his cowardly crew are dead.
Bin Laden will will spend his eternity covered in whale shit at the bottom of the sea; NOT with seventy (70) virgins in Allah-ville.
U.S. Navy SEALs have the courage, conviction and ability to assure that justice at all costs is attainable anywhere on the globe......that's what makes a winner.
GO NAVY and GOD bless our brave heroes!
Thursday, April 14, 2011
BARACK OBAMA AND THE AUDACITY OF "HOPE-OCRISY"
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA recently unveiled what he called a fiscally responsible budget proposal whose corner stone is taxing success..................what audacity indeed.
Barack Hussein Obama campaigned on the promise that he would reduce the national deficit by 50% (~$4 trillion) by the end of HIS first term. However, half way through this "historic" term; the national deficit has instead INCREASED by well over $4 trillion.
U.S. Congressman Paul Ryan's $6 trillion deficit reduction proposal over ten (10) years has pressured Obama, commonly known as the man without a plan, to step into the budget arena. Thus, Obama, in his typical indignant fashion, had the unfettered gall to propose a plan to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion in twelve (12) years.
In other words, not only does Obama's budget proposal NOT fulfill his 2008 campaign pledge of a 50% deficit reduction during his first term; it will now take TWELVE (12) years to merely bring the deficit almost BACK to the level he INHERITED.
Obama's plan is classic Democratic victim hood economics.................excuse the consequences of irresponsibility by playing to the masses through class envy. Demonize responsibility, sacrifice, and hard work by labeling those that proscribe to that behavior as the exploitive "rich" and demand that they pay their "fair share".
But what are the guidelines for determining an individual's fair share? Currently, the bottom half of the socio-economic ladder pay essentially no federal income tax and the top 10% of wage earners cover upwards of 70% of the income tax burden.
The personal income tax rates in America have gone up and down over time.
In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War the United States government imposed its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861, as part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (3% of all incomes over US $800). This tax was repealed in 1862.
In 1894, Democrats in Congress passed the Wilson-Gorman Tariff, which imposed the first peacetime income tax. The rate was 2% on income over $4000, which meant fewer than 10% of households would pay any. The purpose of the income tax was to make up for revenue that would be lost by tariff reductions.
In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system.
In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920.
With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections—to $7.3 billion.
The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945.
Obama argues that by not renewing the current tax structure for the top wage earners in America he is simply eliminating tax breaks for the rich...........................REALLY?
Increasing the tax bracket for higher wage earners is NOT eliminating anyone's tax breaks it is nothing more than an across the board tax increase on those earning an arbitrary amount that the government unilaterally considers a lot of money.
If it were really an issue of everyone paying their fair share of personal income taxes; Congress and the President ought to address how a Wilson-Gorman (supra) tax model is not a more equitable solution than the class envy model.
America's National debt crisis is not an issue of inadequate tax revenues it is an issue of fraudulent and abusive spending by our elected leaders for whom the rules don't apply.......
Barack Hussein Obama campaigned on the promise that he would reduce the national deficit by 50% (~$4 trillion) by the end of HIS first term. However, half way through this "historic" term; the national deficit has instead INCREASED by well over $4 trillion.
U.S. Congressman Paul Ryan's $6 trillion deficit reduction proposal over ten (10) years has pressured Obama, commonly known as the man without a plan, to step into the budget arena. Thus, Obama, in his typical indignant fashion, had the unfettered gall to propose a plan to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion in twelve (12) years.
In other words, not only does Obama's budget proposal NOT fulfill his 2008 campaign pledge of a 50% deficit reduction during his first term; it will now take TWELVE (12) years to merely bring the deficit almost BACK to the level he INHERITED.
Obama's plan is classic Democratic victim hood economics.................excuse the consequences of irresponsibility by playing to the masses through class envy. Demonize responsibility, sacrifice, and hard work by labeling those that proscribe to that behavior as the exploitive "rich" and demand that they pay their "fair share".
But what are the guidelines for determining an individual's fair share? Currently, the bottom half of the socio-economic ladder pay essentially no federal income tax and the top 10% of wage earners cover upwards of 70% of the income tax burden.
The personal income tax rates in America have gone up and down over time.
In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War the United States government imposed its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861, as part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (3% of all incomes over US $800). This tax was repealed in 1862.
In 1894, Democrats in Congress passed the Wilson-Gorman Tariff, which imposed the first peacetime income tax. The rate was 2% on income over $4000, which meant fewer than 10% of households would pay any. The purpose of the income tax was to make up for revenue that would be lost by tariff reductions.
In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system.
In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920.
With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections—to $7.3 billion.
The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945.
Obama argues that by not renewing the current tax structure for the top wage earners in America he is simply eliminating tax breaks for the rich...........................REALLY?
Increasing the tax bracket for higher wage earners is NOT eliminating anyone's tax breaks it is nothing more than an across the board tax increase on those earning an arbitrary amount that the government unilaterally considers a lot of money.
If it were really an issue of everyone paying their fair share of personal income taxes; Congress and the President ought to address how a Wilson-Gorman (supra) tax model is not a more equitable solution than the class envy model.
America's National debt crisis is not an issue of inadequate tax revenues it is an issue of fraudulent and abusive spending by our elected leaders for whom the rules don't apply.......
Friday, April 8, 2011
WASHINGTON'S DYSFUNCTIONAL KITCHEN TABLE
The American Family Budget--Washington Style:
1. The family credit cards are ALL maxed out and credit applications are pending.
2. The 10,000+ square foot homestead on three (3) manicured acres with detached quarters, outdoor kitchen, lazy river, spa and Olympic pool; all financed with a zero down interest only balloon note is now six (6) months in arrears.
3. The Spring Break family vacation for next year is already booked for the Venice Simplon-Orient-Express from Paris to Istanbul.
4. The support staff is in full gear shopping and packing for the family in preparation of summering in The Hamptons (this summer home is also heavily leveraged and in arrears).
5. The chalet in St. Tropez is being totally redone in anticipation of the secular winter holiday party season; numerous construction liens against the property, notwithstanding.
6. The 2012 Gulfstream G650 family jet was delivered last week with the family logo prominently painted on the fuselage.
7. Baby momma # 13 ordered her new Escalade....her old one already has over 10K miles.
8. Harry R., the eldest, is eyeing an Aston Martin One-77.
9. Nancy P., the original baby momma, wants a new A/C system installed in the kennels fearing the poor dogs will surely die otherwise.
10. Baby Daddy is demanding a raise from his employer to cover the family expenses. He presents the argument that this raise is a humanitarian necessity and that merit is irrelevant. Further, that a denial of this arbitrary demand would be Draconian and constitute extreme and unusual hardship to his family who are entitled to whatever they want and should not be required to work if they don't feel like it.
And the party never seems to end.......................until Johnny, Harry's step-brother, hooks up with a bunch of responsible friends at a tea party who advocate stopping this madness.
The family dismisses these Tea Party folks as bitter racists.
Thus the dilemma:
President Barack Hussein Obama wants everyone on the planet to worship him; but his role as POTUS requires leadership decisions which threaten his narcissistic persona.
Mr. President, it's time to BE Presidential and swing the bat.................the victim routine is wearing thin and the BUCK STOPS IN THE OVAL OFFICE.
1. The family credit cards are ALL maxed out and credit applications are pending.
2. The 10,000+ square foot homestead on three (3) manicured acres with detached quarters, outdoor kitchen, lazy river, spa and Olympic pool; all financed with a zero down interest only balloon note is now six (6) months in arrears.
3. The Spring Break family vacation for next year is already booked for the Venice Simplon-Orient-Express from Paris to Istanbul.
4. The support staff is in full gear shopping and packing for the family in preparation of summering in The Hamptons (this summer home is also heavily leveraged and in arrears).
5. The chalet in St. Tropez is being totally redone in anticipation of the secular winter holiday party season; numerous construction liens against the property, notwithstanding.
6. The 2012 Gulfstream G650 family jet was delivered last week with the family logo prominently painted on the fuselage.
7. Baby momma # 13 ordered her new Escalade....her old one already has over 10K miles.
8. Harry R., the eldest, is eyeing an Aston Martin One-77.
9. Nancy P., the original baby momma, wants a new A/C system installed in the kennels fearing the poor dogs will surely die otherwise.
10. Baby Daddy is demanding a raise from his employer to cover the family expenses. He presents the argument that this raise is a humanitarian necessity and that merit is irrelevant. Further, that a denial of this arbitrary demand would be Draconian and constitute extreme and unusual hardship to his family who are entitled to whatever they want and should not be required to work if they don't feel like it.
And the party never seems to end.......................until Johnny, Harry's step-brother, hooks up with a bunch of responsible friends at a tea party who advocate stopping this madness.
The family dismisses these Tea Party folks as bitter racists.
Thus the dilemma:
President Barack Hussein Obama wants everyone on the planet to worship him; but his role as POTUS requires leadership decisions which threaten his narcissistic persona.
Mr. President, it's time to BE Presidential and swing the bat.................the victim routine is wearing thin and the BUCK STOPS IN THE OVAL OFFICE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
