Just On Principle…

I don’t like it when the government takes 40% of my money or nearly 50% of others’ money.

I do not care for presidential candidates who plan on taking more of my money. And if they promise to give more of it back, my first question is: “why did you need to take it in the first place?”

And so I do not like Barak Hussein Obama as presidential candidate.

Barak Hussein Obama’s tax policies are untenable, immoral, and will tip this nation into financial ruin.

When it is hard to make an honest living, it is easier to make a dishonest one.

We are responsible for the the results of our ideas: Barak will be to blame for the worst recessional economy in America, he will be responsible for making America a little more like he thinks it is now: dirty, vile, unworthy.

And so, just on principle, I oppose his candidacy.

10,000 Lies

Does the truth we find in this humor scare anyone else?

I’ve had the following images floating around on my computer for a while, waiting for me to actually post them. It seems to me, in their attempt to paint the liberal and Democrat as the loving, caring, truly human leadership, anybody with a mind will recognize the fallacies and dangers of the blanket statements made in this children’s book.

Children reading this book will be cursed with the feeling there is actual truth to be found in the ideas. They will accept without thinking the lies of socialism and liberal socio-political theory and practice.

Read and weep for America.

What parent wants their children to hurt?

What parent tries to protect the children from the pains of life?

What parent can?

Laudable.

But given the current state of Political-Business relations, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say: “Democrats give the Police Officers’ and Firefighters’ Unions the tools they need to keep dead weight and stupid policies in place hampering the heroes efforts, abilities, skills, and desires to serve as they are called”?

And I would want my children to go to those war-zones, indoctrination facilities, stupid-makers, great-levellers of the people they call schools?

I know what they mean is that we can all go to college. But 1) where is that a constitutional right or a universal requirement, and 2) aren’t there plenty of great colleges for cheap?

There are plenty of jobs in which one can work their way up to a comfortable level of pay which require no college. And the government has neither interest nor right to take money from those who aren’t going to college to give to those who are.

Maybe if there were less “free” money floating around from the government, the cost of education would come down, and only those dedicated and intelligent people would stay in teaching as it became less of a lucrative career option.

Democrats are government, not Mommy. This is a legitimate role for Mommy, not government.

To the extent that Democrats seek to usurp this role, they confuse the nature of society and culture. This is immoral.

Pompous, self-aggrandizing, megalomaniacal do-gooders!

Show me someone who believes this and I’ll show you someone certifiably insane.

First, there is no proof the Earth is “sick” with Global warming. There is proof there are regular and natural cycles of warming and cooling, and there is not proof we are even in a warming cycle.

Second, the temerity of the writer and those who agree with him in assuming a political party which has existed a mere 200 years has the might to enact significant change in an entire planet which they believe has existed 4.5 Billion years.

Someone call the nice men in white coats.

False.

The truth is, Democrats make sure schools cannot fire bad teachers. Democrats make sure children know all about condoms and how to have sex with each other, leaving it to the parents to teach reading and writing and true morals.

Individually, Democrats are generally caring people. But are they busy loving people to hell?

UPDATE:

These are not parodies, these are selections from one of two books for children:

Why Mommy Is A Democrat & Why Daddy Is A Democrat

Congestion: Hell On Wheels - Part II

Drew Carey has some ideas on how to improve transportation. One of them includes naming a freeway after himself. How? Just buy it.

Reason.tv host Drew Carey examines the costs and consequences of traffic jams and explores several solutions that can get our roads moving. How does a speedy trip on the “Drew Carey Freeway” sound? Plus, one lucky commuter gets a helicopter ride to work, courtesy of Drew.

So if we go. Click here to watch

Along a similar veign… 

While roads and the highway system will never be completely privatized, what will become of gas tax receipts? The taxes were levied to pay for road maintenance and construction. Today, they are increasingly used to supplement non-transportation projects such as health care, welfare, etc.

When the burden of road maintenance and construction on public entities are reduced, are drivers going to apathetically acquiesce to the diversion of transportation dollars to non-transportation causes simply because gas taxes have always been charged?

Of course, it could be a non-issue because we might all have electric vehicles by that time. Not likely though.

22 Million Ways To Support SCHIP

Bush may have vetoed SCHIP, but you can still help children (even children from wealthy families) recieve government health care. At the same time, you will be paving the way for the rest of us to get it too sometime soon.

All you have to do is… smoke!

Sin taxes are an unreliable and temporary source of income. “Sin” comodities (cigarettes, alcohol, etc.) aren’t necessary for survival so when taxes increase, demand, and thus revenue, decrease.

It is political suicide to put massive government expansions like SCHIP on the government doll immediately, so politicians use sin taxes knowing that, when funds run short, they will shift the burden over to more permanent sources of income.

When Is Good Enough?

Social conservative Christian leaders meetings are being trumpeted by the media. The talking heads crowing that the current crop of Republican presidential contenders are not conservative enough on certain issues and that movers and shakers such as Dr. James Dobson are planning on voting for a third party or not at all if the eventual chosen nominee of either of the two main parties does not support traditional family values such as opposing abortion and support marriage for one man and one woman exclusively.

I agree with these leaders that we desperately need strong leadership, morals and values in our President, without them we really do not have a chance as America. It has been rightly noted that the next President may very well nominate several more Justices to the Supreme Court, and with the current balance of ideology in the Court, the next Justices will direct the Court firmly in either direction.

Things we know for sure:

Hillary will appoint Ginsburg’s and similar justices. Men and women whose moral compass is screwed wrong. This is not a question or a chance, it is a known and acknowledged fact. She is not ashamed to say it. These Justices will direct the court towards the globalization of our legal authority, the affirming and legalization of abortion, the normalization of homosexual “marriage”, and the legal protection of terrorists and the aiders, abettors, and sympathizers, among other things. The Justices will practice judicial activism and will deny the will of the people and their elected representatives and the original intent of the constitution. They will hasten the destruction of America in immorality, wickedness, and the blood of our children.

The front runners of the Republican race, Guiliani and Romney, would appoint justices similar to Scalia and Thomas, who believe in the rule of law and the strong original intent of the Constitution. As such, the will of the people and their elected representatives when codified in law, is the law to them and they would not change it or define it into oblivion. They would deny the constitutionality of Roe V Wade, they would uphold the rights and protections of American citizens and the entire world by denying the supposed “rights” of enemy combatants and terrorists. They would uphold the will of the people in their laws and constitutional amendments protecting marriage between one man and one woman.

I have serious disagreements with the social ideas of Guiliani and qualms about the religious view of Romney, but when the option is Hillary, I will throw my whole weight of support behind them for our Country’s sake.

Of the two, I support Romney right now. He has changed his mind on social issues, but in the right direction.

So what of Thompson, McCain, and the others? Thompson has not done much since he announced his candidacy, wowing few and wooing fewer. He is not consistent in cutting spending or on social issues. I’d support him just as heartily if he were to be the nominee, but I will not support him in the primary. McCain is not good for America. His highest aim is his own preeminence and he can only be trusted to to what is expedient for himself. A selfish man is not a man to whom one gives authority.

Huckabee is trying too hard to be all thing to all people, the funny man, the cool man, the smart man, the right man. He is all things to all, and nothing true. This is sad. I had hoped he’d be a good man for the job, but he would be polling and focus-grouping as much as the last President from Arkansas. And with a name like Huckabee, how can he be elected?

As for Paul, to (mis)quote a bastion of English (French?) literature: “I fart in (his) general direction”. There is neither honor, honesty, nor leadership potential in that man. He tickles the ears of his listeners with good ideas mixed with bad. With false libertarianism and fake posture. His listeners and adherents are as enthusiastic as they are deluded and I pity them, and have little patience for them.

Do I wish there were a strong Christian man with history and depth, with values and strength? Yes. It is a sad commentary on the state of the lazy and bloated, idle Christianity which defines our Country that we do not have a strong man leading the way, an obvious and unimpeachable choice, a shoo in who no one can say wrong about because He is right and good.

We do not have such a man, and to search elsewhere for one is to run the risk of finding ourselves lost in history as those who forsook the good hoping to find the impossible.

Is Government “Output” And “Productivity” An Oxymoron?

Please don’t go bored on me now. I’ll post videos later for your entertainment. For now, though, here’s some food for thought: can government “output” and “productivity” be accurately compared with manufacturing output and productivity? Better yet, it there any such thing as government “output” (other than license plates and other products made by inmates.)?

A couple weeks ago, blogger David Hansen posted a blurb about government employment eclipsing manufacturing employment.

A few days ago, he supplemented the post with another post with some graphs comparing manufacturing and government from the perspective of output and particularly productivity.

Hansen concluded from his graphs that, while “manufacturers continue to empower their employees with the tools and techniques that allow them to produce more and more value”, “government’s productivity remains virtually unchanged, insulated if you will, from the forces driving productivity increases on the part of the private sector.”

“[W]hat good,” he asks, “does it do to improve the productivity of Ohio’s private sector when government simply grows in size without the least bit of productivity improvement?

He sums it up: “The government our private economy pays for must improve its productivity. When it doesn’t, it costs the rest of us missed growth and prosperity.”

Interesting.

I included the post on a newsletter and received the following comment from a reader:

I’m fascinated by “More on Government, Manufacturing and Productivity.”

Government productivity is an oxymoron. This isn’t just a put down it’s a truism.

Productivity in the classical economic sense is “adding value.” If a teacher sits in a classroom all day doing nothing and the students learn nothing, are we to say that there is productivity? Conversely, how do we measure the added value of the efforts of an outstanding teacher? Maybe a teacher with a larger class is more productive, whether the students learn anything or not.

What about a clerk at city hall who processes building permits? If they process more permits per hour than they did before are they more productive? Did they add any value?

Is a police officer who issues more speeding tickets more productive than one who just sits in his cruiser eating donuts?

Perhaps government productivity could be measured in collecting or spending tax dollars.

All seriousness aside, what did you use as a measure of government productivity?

David Denholm

Any thoughts?

Speaking Of Race - Government Funded Family Tree Research

Some delegates want the NEA to support “legislation providing funding of DNA testing for African-Americans so they can trace their ancestry and their country of origin.”

I want some input on this. While DNA testing may be important to some individuals, is it a proper role for government to play? What are your thoughts?

The union rational says, “Researching one’s family tree is worthwhile and at times medically necessary. Most African-Americans cannot trace their ancestry to their country of origin. DNA testing would allow them to make that identification.”

OMG! I Agree With Hillary

I saw an article today in which Hillary Clinton said the following:

“I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society. I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”

She was referring specifically to big, bad businesses that get tax breaks, ship jobs overseas and pay their top employees millions of dollars.

I agree with her. Not because I believe in socialism and a nanny state, but because I do not believe politicians should pick the winners and losers in a community, including businesses. Rather, the government should ensure a level playing field on which all can compete.

What are government subsidies?

Government subsidies are carrots officials dangle in front of businesses to get them to locate in a specific place. There are three primary arguments in favor of this approach.

When a business locates in a specific location it 1) creates jobs to build the infrastructure to support the business (buildings, roads, etc.), it 2) creates jobs to run the business, and it 3) creates revenue for the local government by generating taxes.

Often, business incentives come in the form of waiving building fees, which for big businesses, are in the millions of dollars. Other times, such as for professional sports facilities, the government sells bonds.

Government officials rationalize these handouts in three ways.

First, they argue that they don’t have the money in their bank accounts right now, so they aren’t actually loosing or giving the business money.

Second, they argue that primary and secondary taxes (property taxes, sales taxes and income taxes) paid by the new business will generate enough revenue to make up for the loss in income.

Third, public officials argue that if they don’t offer a good enough incentive, neighboring jurisdictions will and they will not get any new revenue.

These arguments do not stand up to scrutiny and I will explain why tomorrow. Again, public officials should not be in the business of picking the winners and losers in a community.

Today’s Interesting Stuff

I’m browsing Bongo which I’ve Stumble(d)upon and find a pithy review of Algores Enviro-fest faux-film, An Inconvenient Truth:

An Inconvenient Truth An exaggerated slide show with the inconvenient truth that Gore is a bore. ~Jack Palethorpe

… and a narcissistic self-loathing (yes I know those are mutually exclusive terms, but he is both self-loving (his own person) and self-loathing (his humanity) at the same time) overweight… well I’ll just keep the rest of the words I was thinking to myself, I’m sure you have plenty that fit just fine.

In case you can’t tell, I’m very angry at the evil Algore is fomenting. Evil, you ask? Yes, his lies, made from a position of carefully studied and purposeful ignorance, cause the creation of policies which cause harm to people without moral justification or even positive outcome. Businesses must spend money enacting meaningless or harmful processes which cost them money with no benefit or return which then forces them to spend less on expanding or improving their own core competencies, creating new jobs or paying workers more. Governments take more money from an already over-taxed populace to use for creating and enforcing restrictive policies which subvert the rights and usurp the responsibilities of the individual.

Because of environmental zombies and their accompanying hard-won policies, DDT is not used in Africa, where it would all but eradicate Malaria, one of the worst killers in that beautiful continent filled with so much trouble. Science says DDT kills? No, a novel, yes, that’s right, a NOVEL spinning a heart rending story of a dream of a silent spring twisted the brainless spineless pointless morons which populate so many government positions and a policy is born. And innocents die.

I’m Not Sorry

NotSorryAboutOurPresident.com is a wonderful site. The problem is, apparently more hateful ignorant people have time to vote at its anti-site. Go, post. It takes like ten seconds. If you already have something to say.

And Two Lists To Top It Off

50 Things Men Wish Women Knew

50 Things Women Wish Men Knew

These are good. Very good. I think. (see below)

##Edit##

The lists are mostly good. They do focus a bit on married couples and the benefits and issues contained in such a relationship. Just so you’re forewarned. I hadn’t read the entire lists before I posted. They’re still worth reading though.

Has The Tax Platform Seen Its Day?

Is the tax plank on the Republican platform still a viable issue to run on? In Ari’s article I posted on yesterday, I think he makes a good point when he makes a distinction between the Republican and Democratic tax ideology and platform.

“If Republicans, including their presidential candidates, wonder why their calls for tax relief don’t resonate like they used to, it’s because there aren’t that many income taxpayers left. They’ve been taken off the rolls.

“As for the Democrats, they historically have raised taxes and redistributed income as a core philosophy. It doesn’t matter to them how much money some people pay — the argument is that the wealthy can always pay more. According to this point of view, it’s immaterial that the tax code is highly progressive; it can always be made more progressive. While raising taxes on the few to benefit the many might be a political winner, it’s an increasingly risky policy to pursue.”

The tax platform is genius both as a campaign issue - cutting taxes puts more money in the pockets of workers - and a means to economic growth - cutting taxes encourages those that can to invest in new and growing businesses, creating more jobs.

But 60 percent of voters cannot relate to what Republican candidates say when they advocate for fewer taxes. Sixty percent of voters are not affected by taxes and do not understand what they can gain from fewer taxes.

One value is money out of pocket. If 60 percent of voters never have money taken from their paychecks (of course, they pay sales taxes, registration fees, etc.), they never see an increase in their bottom line when taxes are reduced and so have no incentive to favor fewer taxes.

Another value is increased economic opportunity. Raising taxes reduces available jobs because investors have less to invest in new businesses, but workers have a difficult time realizing how this affects them. Workers can’t see jobs they never had. They can see the increased government aid they receive from the tax increase, but they can’t see the great job they could have had that the tax killed.

So forty percent of voters pay all the taxes. This is a minority. When Republicans pull out the tax card, only 40 of 100 people listening understand. No party can win an election with 40 percent of voters. The tax platform may have seen its day.

Will the inequality right itself? No. Ari writes: “If, as now happens, 60% of the people in our democracy can force 40% to pay the bills, what’s to stop 65% from making 35% pay it all? Since no one wants to pay taxes, what’s to stop 90% of people in a democracy from making 10% pay it all? Or why not let 99% of the country off the hook, as long as the remaining 1% picks up the tab?”

While the tax platform should not be dropped (lowering taxes is a foundational element of a healthy economy) it may be time to start finding another mainstay.