Joel's Rant

It all seemed so possible just a few weeks ago, that the Governor’s race in New York would be a toss-up and the seemingly anointed and self-important Andrew Cuomo, son of liberal icon and former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, could actually lose to underdog Carl Paladino, the inexperienced but tough as nails businessman from depressed Buffalo.  Now, after some ostensibly inexcusable remarks in which Paladino tried to explain that children shouldn’t be taught in school that homosexuality is acceptable and that while he supports gay rights he opposes gay marriage, the previous close horse race for Governor seems to have changed into a potential romp in favor of the liberal Democrat.  With the coming fiscal collapse of the State of New York you’d think the voters would focus on the mismanagement and political corruption of their present leaders instead of excoriating Paladino for mentioning the issue of teaching about homosexuality in the public schools, to sometimes very young children.  How much more irrelevant to the coming collapse of the state government could Paladino’s clumsy remarks have been, but that’s not the case, in this case, right?

Lost in the new Paladino narrative that says he’s not only anti-human rights, that he may now even be anti-human, is the fact that Andrew Cuomo is one of the architects of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac financial debacle that nearly crashed the economy of the entire United States.  As Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under Bill Clinton, Andrew Cuomo wrote the policy that forced banks, under penalty of law, to make mortgage loans to people who could never afford to pay back their debt, making failure, foreclosure and financial collapse inevitable.  That’s a fact.

It was Andrew Cuomo who further wrote the policy that required banks to count welfare payments and unemployment benefits as income in determining mortgage eligibility.  It was under the leadership of Andrew Cuomo that HUD developed the infamous “no income mortgage” and the equally infamous “no documentation mortgage”.  That’s also a fact.

When at first banks started to balk, Andrew Cuomo enlisted Attorney General Janet Reno to threaten banks with licensing and merger rejections if they did not tow the HUD line of getting loans to those least able to repay their debt.  In fact, under the direction of Andrew Cuomo, banks were required to make certain that about 50% of the mortgages they wrote had to go to the so-called “disadvantaged.”  We all know how that worked out, and yet he’s the front runner.  And that’s a fact.

And what did Carl Paladino do to take the oxygen completely out of this race?  He essentially had the temerity to take exception to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruling that parents cannot take their kindergarteners out of Massachusetts public-schools classes that teach 5-year-olds that same-sex marriage is a good thing. He essentially questioned how a federal judge in San Francisco, in ruling that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, could declare that children do not need both mothers and fathers and do just as well being raised by same-sex couples, even though there’s no evidence of that anywhere.  The fact that New York State presently pays more in their budget for Medicaid than both Texas and Florida combined should be good reason for voter anger, yet Paladino’s questioning teaching about homosexuality in public schools has his legitimacy being questioned, while no one’s asking Andrew Cuomo any questions.  Go figure!

Except for California, New York is the next closest to bankruptcy and financial ruin of any other state in the nation.  To resolve that potentially disastrous situation, New Yorkers can vote for Andrew Cuomo, with his record of failure, financial ruin and political correctness, or they can vote for Carl Paladino who has vowed to reduce spending and taxes in New York by 20% and has the business acumen to do just that.  Yet it’s Carl Paladino who’s considered the extremist.

At a debate earlier this week, the Democrat nominee for Senator in Delaware, Chris Coons, similarly labeled Republican Christine O’Donnell “an extremist”.  He even made a special attempt to bring up her high school “witchcraft activities” to further prove his point.  Interestingly, when Coons ran for County Executive four years ago he promised not to raise taxes, yet went ahead and raised them three times in those four years to pay for his increased spending that helped drive his county to near bankruptcy.  Yet it’s Christine O’Donnell who’s considered the extremist.

And then there’s the curious case of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the partner of Barack Obama, or maybe the puppet of Barack Obama, leading the charge to pass the $872 billion stimulus bill (increasing to over $1.2 trillion when interest is included) and the disastrous ObamaCare health reform legislation that 60% of the nation wants repealed. 

Isn’t it interesting that earlier this week Barack Obama himself stated that there’s no such thing as “shovel ready” projects and that the money planned for those activities, for which the stimulus law was specifically passed, was essentially spent on other stuff that did not stimulate the economy at all?  In fact, only 3% of the “stimulus money” actually went for “shovel ready” programs, the rest being spent on paying public employee union workers and shoring up entitlement spending.  But Harry Reid supported all of it.  In fact, Harry Reid was one of the architects of that trillion dollar fiasco that future generations will have to pay back long after most of us are gone.  Even now, Harry Reid supports Barack Obama’s call for another $200 billion stimulus on top of the $872 billion, this time to really really be spent on the infrastructure projects the earlier stimulus was supposed to cover that never did.  We’re being played for suckers and Harry Reid has no problem being Obama’s field general to make that happen.

Oh, and while our armed forces were engaged in actual combat with Islamic barbarians, putting someone else’s sons and daughters and husbands and wives and fathers and mothers in harm’s way, Harry Reid stated to the entire world that the war in Iraq was lost.  In his never ending effort to actually get American forces defeated so Democrats would have a political advantage in future elections, Harry Reid gave aid and comfort to our enemies, helping them recruit and continue to carry the battle further.  Yet it’s Sharron Angle who’s considered the extremist.

I could go on and on but the important point is to ask who exactly are the extremists in these and other races all around the country.  Let’s look at the record.

In the past 21 months a record number of housing foreclosures have occurred, with no decrease in sight.  There are now over 43 million American living in poverty, the most in U.S. history.  Over 50 million people now receive food stamps; that’s one of every 6 Americans.  Another 50 million Americans are presently on Medicaid and another 30 million will be added to that number once the full impact of ObamaCare begins in 2014.

Before Democrats took control of both houses of Congress in January 2007, the last Republican Congress budget had a $171 billion dollar deficit.  Once Democrats started writing and passing the budgets, in the last two years of the Bush administration, the deficits rose immediately to over $400 billion.  In the past 2 years, Obama’s budget deficits have been $1.4 trillion each with additional $1 trillion budget deficits expected in each of the next 10 years, and that’s assuming nothing additionally bad happens.  Because of these Democrat actions, the accumulated national debt will effectively triple by the year 2020 to over $20 trillion, and will exceed the debt of every president from George Washington to George W. Bush combined.

Now let’s be absolutely clear; it’s the Congress, not the President, who determines spending and passes budgets.  The President only approves or vetoes what the Congress passes.  The “monthly deficits” presently being passed under Democrats by this Congress, and approved by this present President, now exceeds the “yearly deficits” passed under Republicans.  And it’s the Republicans who are the extremists?

Unemployment officially stands at 9.6%, while the underemployment percentage is over 17% and in some states over 20%.  Those are depression-era numbers that will not improve; in fact those are numbers that cannot possibly improve because of the anti-business, anti-free market and anti-capitalist environment and policies the Democrats in Congress and the President have pursued since January 2009.  The raising of corporate taxes and personal income taxes, new regulations, uncertainty over health care provisions and premiums, cap & trade taxation, EPA regulations and rulings, bailouts of favored industries over the free market, and the continued and constant attack against banks, entrepreneurs, insurance companies, big corporations, wealthy Americans, and any small business “grossing” over $250,000 means no new job growth will created for the foreseeable future.  None.  Our present economy is our future economy, the economy your children and grandchildren will inherit.  And it’s the Republicans who are the extremists?

Democrats have closed the Gulf to offshore drilling, foreclosed on the licensing process for new nuclear power plants, and crippled the coal industry with regulations and threats of cap and trade, all in an effort to starve the American economy of the energy lifeblood it needs to compete economically with the rest of the world.  A nation without access to cheap and continual energy supplies is a nation committing national suicide. And it’s the Republicans who are the extremists?

And that’s just some of the stuff the Democrats, the President and their minions have done.  I’m not even talking about the Black Panther fiasco, Supreme Court Justices who believe the government can force you to eat three vegetables a day, or the racism epidemic at the Eric Holder Justice Department.

So here’s the real truth.  Carl Paladino is not an extremist.  Tea Party candidates like Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Rand Paul, Joe Miller and others are not extremist. Sarah Palin is not an extremist. Candidates that speak of the Constitution and American exceptionalism are not extremist.  People who believe in limited government, personal property, personal responsibility and understanding the government works for the people and not the other way around are not extremist.  Neighbors and friends who stand up and take to the streets and proclaim that enough is enough and demand accountability from our so-called leaders are not extremist.

But every Democrat is an extremist.  That’s a fact.

And that’s all there is to it.

What a week for Barack Obama and the Democrats?  I think they really revealed themselves in a most dastardly fashion.

Obama is revealed; by of all people the liberal pundit, author, and Sunday morning mainstream media favorite Bob Woodward, as demonstrably ambivalent about the Afghanistan War and in fact only cares about how the so-called “good war” will play out politically for him and his runaway agenda. 

Even though he campaigned furiously about the importance of winning in Afghanistan, Woodward, who was given free rein to wander the halls of the White House and to talk to anyone without restriction, portrays a president thinking only of himself and his place in history.  That campaign tough talk was all a ruse, a fake, a fraud.  It was all “so Obama.”  Why am I not surprised.

The ramifications of Obama’s dysfunctional coldness and narcissism does not much interest me here because the real issue that every American should feel and care about is how could he order over 100,000 American troops into harm’s way when all he cares about is spending more money on his failed domestic policies?  The American’s presently fighting this war are someone’s sons and daughters, or husbands and wives, or fathers and mothers, or loved ones and friends and represent real people who have their own lives to lose.  How could he possibly send them to a place where they can easily be killed when he doesn’t give a hoot for the mission to which he clearly falsely claimed was a war that must be won?  He lied, he lied, and in a very real and horrible way, people have literally died.  Literally.  What kind of person does that?  How did we let that happen?

But there’s more. 

Earlier this week, a former Voting Chief for the Civil Rights Division of the Barack Obama-Eric Holder Justice Department, testified under oath before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that the DOJ is purposely ignoring civil rights cases that involve white victims.  What the fudge is that all about?  In fact, Christopher Coates, formerly a top attorney for the ACLU and once the lead attorney in the New Black Panthers Party case, for crying out loud, even called the dismissal of charges against the Black Panthers a “travesty of justice.”

Coates stated that Obama political appointees dismissed the case because they are opposed to enforcing civil rights laws in a racially neutral fashion.  Coates testified that he was reprimanded by Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King when he asked attorneys in job interviews if they could enforce the law equally.  He claimed King took offense because she does not support equal enforcement of the provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

To repeat, all of that was testified to by Coates under oath.

That testimony corroborated earlier testimony by J. Christian Adams, also formerly a high level attorney at the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, that Obama political appointee Julie Fernandes made it clear that the Voting Section at the Justice Department would not be bringing any more cases against “traditional national racial minorities”, like the members of the New Black Panthers Party.

So the Democrat Party, the party of inequality and blatantly racist preferential treatment, strikes again.  It’s clear the DOJ will not enforce the laws which it does not agree with.  If that’s not a definition of tyranny, what is?  What kinds of people do that?  How did we let that happen?

But there’s more.

There does not appear to be a single Democrat running for reelection this year who is embracing the “achievements” of the Obama-Reid-Pelosi legislation of the past 20 months.  If anyone knows of a Democrat running toward that agenda, please let me know.

So here are the Democrats, virtually every single one of them, who voted for $862 Billion in stimulus money even though the recession had ended in July 2009, before any stimulus money had even been spent, for Cap & Trade “Soviet-style” industrial central planning, for ObamaCare legislation that could only be passed by deception, coercion and malfeasance, and for takeovers and bailouts, for turning their backs and pretending they had absolutely nothing to do with it.  Somehow all of that economic destruction happened all on its own.  They don’t know about it, they weren’t anywhere near the Capitol Building when it was passed, it must have been someone else, the dog ate their homework and on and on.

The point is the Democrats in Congress are unprincipled leaches on our civil society.  I suppose there are some Republicans that are just as disgusting, but at least virtually none of them had anything to do with the stuff that has generated over $3 Trillion in new debt in just 20 months, forced a record number of Americans onto Medicaid and Food Stamps, generated the most housing foreclosures in history, grew unemployment from 7.5% on January 19, 2009 to 10% today with the unofficial unemployment rate actually at almost 18% and to over 20% in some states, and have taken over the health decisions of every American.  No, that’s just the Democrats, they did that, it’s all on them and none of them will take responsibility.   How did we let that happen?

And what about the voters?  I think there really is something to the old saying that you get the government you deserve.  Just look at what’s about to happen in New York State, for example.

They have Andrew Cuomo running for Governor and he is ahead in his race by about 8 points or so.  What makes that so difficult to believe is that it was Cuomo, while head of Bill Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban Development, who instructed banks, under pain of law, to make loans to people who could never afford to pay the loans back.  It was Cuomo who decided that welfare payments and unemployment payments must be called income and included in the calculation for the purposes of determining mortgage approval.  It was Cuomo who went to Clinton’s Attorney General Janet Reno to demand actions against banks that did not accept Cuomo’s lending requirements.  But New Yorkers are still favoring Cuomo and will likely elect him to Governor of their bankrupt and mismanaged state.  Go figure!

And then there’s Kirsten Gillibrand running for Senator and leading her opponent by about 10 points.  It was Gillibrand to whom Cuomo turned while he was at HHS to find ways to make it easier for otherwise ineligible people to get mortgages.  It was Gillibrand who developed the infamous “no-income” mortgage and infamous “no-proof” mortgage.  She was one of the leaders of the policy that lead directly to the mortgage and financial crisis our nation is presently suffering through.  But New Yorkers will likely make her a Senator for another 6 years.  You can’t make this stuff up.

But wait, let’s not leave out Senator Chuck Schumer, also running for reelection and is leading his opponent by a whopping 23 points or more.  It was Schumer, along with Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, who objected to reigning in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and making sure only Democrats like Franklin Raines, Frank Johnson and Jamie Gorelick were allowed to lead these entities and take bonus and salary in the millions. Raines actually took over $90 million in salary and bonuses while Gorelick took over $20 million.  But Schumer has a complete lock on reelection bestowed upon him by admiring New Yorkers.  That’s bullcrap!

When that kind of constituent thinking permeates the Democrat party you know our country is in mortal danger.

And isn’t that what we’ve learned again this week?  That it doesn’t take much to turn our great nation into a near Third World backwater? 

These people have got to go.  Voters need to wise up. 

Regardless of your lifetime political persuasion, this time you need to do something positive for the future of our country.  This time you need to do something positive for your family’s future, for your children and grandchildren.  This time you need to vote like your very life depends on it. 

This year you need to vote Republican.

And that’s all there is to it.

Just before the polls had closed on Tuesday, the great and wise Charles Krauthammer and the ideologically liberal Juan Williams appeared together in a panel on Fox News to discuss the potential for a Christine O’Donnell victory in Delaware.  This was a full 2 hours before Karl Rove appeared on Hannity to pronounce Christine O’Donnell a personality failure of suspect character.  During that panel Krauthammer essentially indicated that the “weak and dubious” O’Donnell had no business taking a certain Republican Senatorial victory away from the liberal Mike Castle, while Williams replied that the excitement generated by the Tea Party is what has introduced new and fresh candidates, bringing an unapologetic conservative ideology to the attention of the voters. 

 I never thought this could happen, but I take Juan Williams over Charles Krauthammer on this one.  Go figure!

 But without getting too deep in the weeds, let’s all focus on what’s important here for a moment.  If O’Donnell had already been in the Senate she would have voted against Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.  She would have voted against ObamaCare, cap & trade, stimulus spending, government takeovers of GM, student loans and AIG.  She would have voted against bailouts and the latest finance bill and would definitely vote against future Card Check, the Disclosure Law and VAT tax legislation which are sure to be introduced by the Democrats if they maintain control in Congress.  She definitely would vote FOR extending the Bush tax cuts and possibly for eliminating the Departments of Education, Commerce and maybe even Energy, all of which essentially serve no purpose. 

 The fact that she may have suffered a foreclosure means nothing; so have a lot of people.  The fact that she may have defaulted on a loan is immaterial; so have lots of people in this economy.  O’Donnell claims both of those issues are mischaracterizations and explains them both away on her campaign website, which also provides IRS and mortgage bank documents online to support her replies (http://christine2010.com/christine-counters/) for those interested in drawing their own conclusions.

The important point, for those looking for a new direction in this country, is that both Mike Castle and her Democrat opponent Chris Coons would have voted the exact opposite of O’Donnell on the issues that count. 

 A review of Mike Castle’s voting record over the past several years includes the following:

Voted YES on TARP
Voted YES on Cap and Trade
Voted YES on Cash for Clunkers
Voted YES on the auto bailout
Voted YES on bailing out Fannie and Freddie
Voted YES on SCHIP (along with its companion tax increase)
Voted YES to increase taxes on oil and gas companies
Voted YES to increase the minimum wage
Voted YES on the pork-infested 2005 Highway bill
Voted YES to increase funding for PBS
Voted YES on the Medicare drug benefit
Voted YES on No Child Left Behind
Voted YES on McCain-Feingold
Voted NO to end milk subsidies
Voted NO on waiving Davis-Bacon labor rules

Voted NO on Iraqi troop surge

Voted NO to open up ANWR

Voted NO to restrict eminent domain abuse

It doesn’t get more liberal than that.  Mike Castle is a liberal and would have continued voting liberal along with every liberal Democrat in Congress and along with Barack Obama.

This brings us to the issue of liberalism and what they believe and where they want to take the country. 

It was just announced last week that poverty in this country has hit a record high as the rate jumped from 13.2% to 14.3%, translating into 43.6 million people living below the poverty line.  And that doesn’t include those millions living just above the poverty line but are one bad break away from entering that netherworld of despair.  That’s the most people in the history of the nation.  In addition, over 60 million people receive Food Stamps and 50 million people are already on Medicaid.  Once ObamaCare kicks in, that number will jump to 80 million people on Medicaid; that’s fully 25% of the entire nation on medical assistance specifically meant for poor people and those living below the poverty line. 

Those are numbers not seen since at least the 1960’s and reflects the failure of liberal poverty spending programs that have taken over $20 trillion out of the private, job creating, economy since 1964’s so-called “War on Poverty”.  Think of the state of our nation today had that $20 Trillion been invested, by the free market and private enterprise, in general research & development, transportation, medical and pharmaceutical development, bio-engineering, energy assets and development, communications and all the other ventures that have produced the most successful society and highest standard of living for all its citizens in the history or the Earth. 

Just think what the poverty population in this country would be had that $20 Trillion been used to create jobs instead of creating victims and handouts and placing people on lifetime assistance.  We’re already seeing 4^th generation welfare recipients in this country.

And what’s the liberal response to these facts?  More spending and blaming George W. Bush for the federal deficit.  Yes, of course, all of this was caused by the Bush tax cuts.  Really?  Let’s cut to the chase and dispel the myth that the Bush tax cuts caused the deficit. 

Actually, in 2002, tax revenues were $1.85 trillion.  In 2007, after the tax cuts had gone into effect, revenues had grown to $2.57 trillion, a 39% increase.  Unfortunately, spending by a Republican Congress outpaced treasury revenues and so the deficit grew.  But never, not even one time during the Bush administration, did any Democrat in Congress state that the budget being passed was too high.   Never did any Democrat call for reducing spending during the Bush years, unless, of course, the spending was for the Defense Department.  Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and all the rest voted every single time for increased spending and complained only when spending wasn’t higher.  And those are the facts.

Barack Obama and his minions somehow believe that “the well off” or “the well connected” people in this country have explicitly conspired to shaft the “middle class”.  Their philosophy of class warfare is right out of the Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” and begs the question of where exactly on the income scale does Barack Obama divide the country between “us” and “them”? 

In 2007, the top 1% of income earners were those making $410,000 or more per year, and they paid 40% of all income taxes.  The top 5% were those making over $160,000 per year, and they paid 60% of the income taxes.

Doesn’t the real antidote to poverty lie in getting this top 5% or so to create the jobs to hire the millions presently receiving assistance?  Isn’t that the only way?  The Reagan years tax cuts saw over 21 million new jobs created.  The Bush years (yes, the George W. Bush years) tax cuts saw 8 million new jobs created.  And those numbers are real and don’t include any accounting gimmicks like “jobs saved.” 

Isn’t Conservatism the antidote to Liberalism? 

The lines being drawn in this country could not be clearer and those lines are being highlighted by the Tea Party movement and those that understand what’s at stake.  As the great Mark Levin has stated, those differences are stark and grim and separate the views of Conservative’s from the views of Liberal’s and include the following:

We believe in the Founders, they believe in Karl Marx,

We believe in liberating the individual, they believe in controlling the individual,

We believe in being able to keep what you earn, they believe in stealing what you earn,

We believe in American citizenship, they believe in Global citizenship,

We believe in American greatness, they believe in American arrogance,

We believe in representative government, they believe in big government,

We believe in liberating and protecting victims, they believe we’re colonialists and imperialists,

We believe in limited government, they believe in unfettered government,

We believe in putting people in control, they believe in controlling the people.

We believe in liberty, they believe in tyranny.

And that’s all there is to it.

It was quite a spectacle to see earlier this week, Barack Obama standing among a crowd of auto workers claiming his stimulus and bailouts saved the industry from disaster and even increasing their payroll by 55,000 workers.  Didn’t Joe Biden state not too long ago that the 8 million jobs lost since the beginning of the recession were not coming back?  Didn’t the government recently announce 3 million jobs “saved” or created yet unemployment grew from 8% in February 2009 to today’s 9.5% and that doesn’t include those millions that have literally dropped out of the labor market, otherwise the jobless percentage would be over 17%, also known as “depression era territory?”  And wasn’t it just this week that the Obama regime floated the idea of another jobs stimulus on top of the $862 billion stimulus already passed last year?  And why would unemployment benefits need to be extended beyond 99 weeks if jobs were actually being created?  Is that progress, or is that admitting disaster?

Actually, having bailed out GM to the tune of $55 billion ($7 billion approved during the Bush administration and $48 billion under Obama plus Obama’s additional $25 billion to Chrysler) I’d expect some auto worker jobs would be created, although at $1 million per job I’d judge that action to have been quite the failure.  And the Obama regime’s forcing GM to build and market their new electric car, the Chevy Volt, reeks of dangerous and politically motivated tidings to come.  Getting only 40 miles to a 3-hour charge (and exactly where does that increased electricity use come from if not fossil fuel power plants) and with a sticker price of $41,000 per unit, and on top of that being subsidized by the taxpayers to the tune of an additional $7500 per unit, you can see this also will be a complete and utter failure.  Who, besides a complete fool or rich democrat (or is that the same thing) , would buy a car like that?  Only the government would miss seeing this effort as a failure.  You’d honestly expect decisions like that to be made by the Soviet Politburo, but that’s what happens when government invades and coerces the private sector.  We can only expect more of this in the other industries being taken over or being invaded by the government. 

And these are the same people who plan to control your health care and tell you what you can and can’t get from your doctor.

If that doesn’t scare the shoot out of you try this.

Niall Ferguson, a professor of history at Harvard University, reports that the great nations and empires of the past were destroyed, and with the fantastic speed of only one or two generations, by ruinous debt and unsustainable ficsal policy.  As Ferguson writes, what are the implications for our country today? The most obvious point is that the fall of great nations are associated with fiscal crises, sharp imbalances between revenues and expenditures, and the mounting cost of servicing a mountain of public debt.  Sound familiar? 

Think of Spain in the 17th century; already by 1543 nearly two-thirds of ordinary revenue was going to interest to pay for the loans by which the Habsburg monarchy financed itself.

Or think of France in the 18th century; between 1751 and 1788, the eve of Revolution, interest and amortization payments rose from just over 25% of tax revenue to 62%.  With that, the Bourbon monarchy passed from triumph to terror with astonishing speed.

Finally, consider Britain in the 20th century. Its real problems came after 1945, when a substantial proportion of its now immense debt burden was in foreign hands, amounting to about 33% of the national GDP.  The Suez crisis in 1956 proved that a financially strapped and weakened Britain, beholden to the US for fiscal support, could not act in defiance of the US in the Middle East, setting the seal on the end of their empire.

If you believe the United States is impervious to those disasters consider the fact that the Obama regime has run a deficit of $1.4 trillion two straight years in a row, about 10% of GDP, with more $1 trillion deficits for the next several years in the future.  Since 2001, in the space of just 10 years, the federal debt in public hands has doubled as a share of GDP from 32% to a projected 66% next year. According to the Congressional Budget Office’s latest projections, the debt could rise above 90 per cent of GDP by 2020 and reach 146 per cent by 2030 and 344 per cent by 2050. 

So how will our leaders deal with this extraordinarily dangerous situation?  By allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, thereby raising taxes on every person and every business in America that still pays taxes.  What that does is take money out of the private sector, where it is otherwise spent building industries, upgrading machines and equipment, providing dollars for research and development and thereby creating high paying jobs that expand markets and increase economic stability.  They’re also going to attack the energy industries and make it even harder to get credit and loans and eventually passing some form of card check to further cripple our ability to complete in the global economy.  And that doesn’t even include the coming VAT tax, wealth tax and potentially taking over your IRA.

Just look at how the stimulus money was wasted.  Look at how all the bailout money was spent.  Look at how Fannie and Freddie have been given, even with all we know about them, a free hand with no monetary limits to continue their destruction of the housing and mortgage industries.  It never ends.  
 
And isn’t it interesting that no matter how high taxes get, and how high the budget deficit gets, it is never enough.  Even with budgets now about $4 trillion each year, for some reason, there’s never enough money for everything.  It’s still not high enough.

How can any significant number of jobs be created when the US corporate tax rate, the second highest in the world, is 35% while the tax on small business is set to rise to 39.6% after January 1, 2011?  Small businesses, like your local pizza restaurant and barber shop, the job creating engine of America, will pay higher taxes than even billion dollar corporations?  How can jobs be created when the people with the money to hire workers will have that money stolen away by the government?

It takes 150,000 new jobs created each month just to keep the unemployment figures stable.  It would take 400,000 jobs each month for 3-years just to get back down to 8% unemployment.  What’s the chance that’s going to happen with this Marxist, anti-business, anti-capitalist, anti-free market, government in control of this country?

The answer is none; there is absolutely no chance that’s going to happen.  In fact, it’s going to get worse, much worse.  Even Ben Bernanke this so.  We’re already Greece.  And when we get worse than Greece there’s going to be civil unrest. 

And that’s all there is to it.

There’s a famous laboratory test that psychologists use to measure things like “fairness” and “altruism” called “The Ultimatum Game.”  There are 2 people that are anonymous to each other.  One person, person A, is given $20.  Person A is told that she must offer Person B a portion of that money.  If Person B accepts the offer they both get to keep the money they have been given.  If Person B rejects the offer, they both go home penniless.

According to the world of economics, if Person A offers $1 to Person B, Person B should accept the offer.  Even though Person A gets to keep $19, at least Person B gets something out of the deal.  If Person B rejects Person A’s offer of only $1, both Persons A and B get nothing.

To me, this is how those on the political left view the Bush tax cut policies of 2001 and 2003, which are presently set to expire on January 1, 2011, thereby instituting the largest single tax increase in American history.  As long as they perceive, incorrectly I might add, that someone is getting more of a tax cut then they are, they don’t want anyone to get the tax cut.  It’s as simple as that.

I have liberal friends tell me all the time that they can’t wait for those tax cuts to expire because they only favored the “rich” or only provided tax cuts to “millionaires.”  They also want “rich” people to finally pay their “fair share” of income taxes.  Never, of course, does anyone provide any data to back up those claims nor do any of them want to actually know the truth.  That would include state-run media people as well.

Don’t you hate that, when the truth gets in the way of making your point?

In fact, the truth is quite the opposite.  But first let’s stipulate a few facts.

1. Poor people do not create jobs.  Unfortunately, that’s a fact.  People without the financial means to hire workers, who expect to be paid for their efforts, are not going to create jobs.  They’re not going to create industries or businesses or provide any of the instrumentalities an economy requires in order to be prosperous.  Generally speaking, only “rich” people can do that and having those people available to provide that kind of support is necessary in a free-market, capitalist society.  Again, that’s a fact.
2. In 2008, the last year in which complete IRS data is so far available, the top 1% of taxpayers paid 40.4% of all the income taxes collected that year.  In fact, under George W. Bush (GWB), the tax liability of this top group grew faster than their share of the income.  Now, I don’t happen to be rich, and I’m certainly not feeling sorry for anyone who is rich, but what part of 40.4% is not a “fair share?”  If 40.4% of the taxes being paid, by only 1% of the payers mind you, is not absolutely amazingly fair, can we at least stipulate it comes very close to being fair?  By the way, the top 5% of taxpayers paid 60% of the income taxes and the top 10% paid 75% of the nation’s income taxes.  Oh, and the bottom 50% paid only 3% of the taxes and 47% of the nation paid zero income taxes.  So much for the argument that so-called rich people are not already paying their fair share.
3. Despite the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, the same amount of money was deposited in the U.S Treasury as there was before the cuts.  That’s a fact.  The conventional wisdom that receipts to the Treasury suffered because of the tax cuts is completely bogus.  The average Treasury collection from federal personal income taxes averaged 18% of GDP from 1953 through 2006.  The Bush Treasury averaged that same 18% from 2001 through 2006.  Even with the cuts, the same amount of tax money was collected. 

However, there were 2 differences from the averages of the past.  First, 6 million new jobs were created during the GWB years, from 2001 through the end of 2006.  That’s a fact, as inconvenient as that is for some to grasp.   Second, while Treasury revenues remained the same even after the tax cuts, spending increased to historical heights, at least historical before Barack Obama. 

An interesting factoid regarding that level of spending is that never one time, not once, not one single time, not for even one moment, did the Democrats in Congress during the GWB years offer a lower budget, filibuster for decreasing spending, or in any way, shape or form recommend cutting spending in any program except for one….the Defense Department.  In fact, the only response to any of the budgets submitted by GWB was that he wasn’t spending enough.  Every GWB budget eventually ended up being raised because of Democrats’ higher spending requirements.  That’s a fact.  And every single higher spending requirement was fully endorsed and approved by…….Barack Obama.  Go figure!

The facts I’ve indicated above are not meant to absolve the GWB presidency of mistakes they made, because they made many.  Every president makes mistakes.  Even the hero of the political left, FDR, took a recession in 1930 and created a Great Depression that did not officially end until 1947.  FDR’s economic policies and his social engineering initiatives were a complete and utter disaster, and breached the fire walls of the Constitution, thereby creating the mechanism of big government that extends into every facet of our life and society that we experience today.  But he was an excellent, politically conservative, and America loving, wartime president.

But the conventional wisdom that the economy under GWB was a disaster is bullcrap. 

I don’t believe GWB ever nationalized an industry, business, company or corporation.  He also recognized potential economic disaster and tried twice to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but was repulsed by the Democrats in Congress (unlike the filibuster proof Congress enjoyed by Barack Obama, GWB has to cater to Democrats’ to get any legislation passed).  With unemployment around 5%, with home values doubled, with low inflation, with a record high stock market, with over 6 million new jobs created through 2006, the GWB economy was something that should be envied today given our current state of distress and danger to the health of the very Republic itself.  Let’s also try to remember that in addition to the recent financial crisis wrought, in large part, by government regulation like the Community Reinvestment Act and the criminality of government agencies like the aforementioned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that the Congress was taken over by Democrats in January 2007, a Congress which included, as one of its most vocal and strident members, one Barack Obama.

So, what are those GWB tax cuts that favor only the rich?

In the chart below you’ll see the tax years 2002 and 2003.  The tax year 2003 shows the rates with the GWB tax cuts, the rates we presently pay. If the tax cuts are allowed to expire by Barack Obama, the tax rates in 2011 will revert essentially to those shown below in tax year 2002.  Got it?

You might want to pay particular attention to how earnings from $46,700 to $56,800, the proverbial middle of the “middle class”, will have their marginal tax rate raised from 15% (2003 chart) to 27% (2002 chart), a rate increase of 12%.  That doesn’t sound too bad, right?  Actually someone paying 15%, and having their tax rate raised to 27%, has just suffered an 80% increase in their income tax!

So it turns out that GWB tax cuts actually helped middle class tax payers the most, with the biggest reductions going to those that needed it the most.  In fact, the GWB tax cuts were targeted to the middle class.  Those are the facts.  Any of that other rhetoric is bullcrap.

Tax Year 2002                                                 Tax Year 2003
 
up to $12,000 10%                              up to $14,000 10%
$12,000 – $46,700 15%                       $14,000 – $56,800 15%
$46,700 – $112,850 27%                     $56,800 – $114,650 25%
$112,850 – $171,950 30%                   $114,650 – $174,700 28%
$171,950 – $307,050 35%                   $174,700 – $311,950 33%
over $307,050 38.6%                          over $311,950 35%

But wait, that’s not all that’s going to change when the GWB rates expire on January 1^st.  In addition to the higher tax rates above, this is what’s going to also change so strap yourself in for the bumpy, and painful, ride:

The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income.  The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child.  The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level.  The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.  For you liberals, pretty good, no?

This year, there is no death tax.  For those dying on or after January 1, 2011, there is a 55% top death tax rate on estates over $1 million.  Actually, $1 million’s not that much.  A person leaving behind two homes, or one home on Long Island, and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.

The capital gains tax will rise from 15% this year to 20% in 2011, a 33% increase.  The dividends tax will rise from 15% this year to 39.6% in 2011, a 164% increase.  These rates will rise another 3.8% in 2013.  These are the kinds of taxes that affect people with retirement savings, pensions, and others who might want to sell assets and take a profit.  That means it includes most people, including you liberals, in the middle class.  (And don’t forget the VAT tax that’s coming as well as the often discussed “wealth tax” on yearly assets owned.)

Here’s a real good one.  You liberals will really like this too.  Congresses failure to index the dreaded Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families—rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million in 2011.  These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. 

And there are all sorts of higher business taxes that will guarantee higher unemployment and more failed businesses.  The recently passed financial overhaul bill, often referred to as Dodd-Frank, has virtually guaranteed that small banks and small financial organizations will go out of business leaving fewer options for consumers seeking loans and mortgages, thereby tightening credit even more than it is right now.

Oh, and don’t forget the first ObamaCare taxes go into effect on January 1^st as well.

Here’s the important thing for my friends on the political left to remember.  The rich can pay taxes.  They’ll either always be able to pay taxes or they can fashion their income so they appear to have no income.  The truly rich can do that.  That’s the beauty in being truly rich.  Got it?

That’s not the same for the rest of us.  That’s not the same for people like you.  Even if you confiscate every dime of every rich person there won’t be enough.  That won’t nearly be enough because there are not nearly enough rich people.   

But the people on the left don’t care.  It’s the Ultimatum Game for them.

But at least you now know the truth.

And that’s all there is to it.