June 25, 2009
Obama, the African Colonial
By L.E. Ikenga
Had Americans been able to stop obsessing over the color of Barack Obama's skin and instead paid more attention to his cultural identity, maybe he would not be in the White House today. The key to understanding him lies with his identification with his father, and his adoption of a cultural and political mindset rooted in postcolonial Africa.
Like many educated intellectuals in postcolonial Africa, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was enraged at the transformation of his native land by its colonial conqueror. But instead of embracing the traditional values of his own tribal cultural past, he embraced an imported Western ideology, Marxism. I call such frustrated and angry modern Africans who embrace various foreign "isms", instead of looking homeward for repair of societies that are broken, African Colonials. They are Africans who serve foreign ideas.
The tropes of America's racial history as a way of understanding all things black are useless in understanding the man who got his dreams from his father, a Kenyan exemplar of the African Colonial.
Before I continue, I need to say this: I am a first generation born West African-American woman whose parents emigrated to the U.S. in the 1970's from the country now called Nigeria. I travel to Nigeria frequently. I see myself as both a proud American and as a proud Igbo (the tribe that we come from -- also sometimes spelled Ibo). Politically, I have always been conservative (though it took this past election for me to commit to this once and for all!); my conservative values come from my Igbo heritage and my place of birth. Of course, none of this qualifies me to say what I am about to -- but at the same time it does.
My friends, despite what CNN and the rest are telling you, Barack Obama is nothing more than an old school African Colonial who is on his way to turning this country into one of the developing nations that you learn about on the National Geographic Channel. Many conservative (East, West, South, North) African-Americans like myself -- those of us who know our history -- have seen this movie before. Here are two main reasons why many Americans allowed Obama to slip through the cracks despite all of his glaring inconsistencies:
First, Obama has been living on American soil for most of his adult life. Therefore, he has been able to masquerade as one who understands and believes in American democratic ideals. But he does not. Barack Obama is intrinsically undemocratic and as his presidency plays out, this will become more obvious. Second, and most importantly, too many Americans know very little about Africa. The one-size-fits-all understanding that many Americans (both black and white) continue to have of Africa might end up bringing dire consequences for this country.
Contrary to the way it continues to be portrayed in mainstream Western culture, Africa is not a continent that can be solely defined by AIDS, ethnic rivalries, poverty and safaris. Africa, like any other continent, has an immense history defined by much diversity and complexity. Africa's long-standing relationship with Europe speaks especially to some of these complexities -- particularly the relationship that has existed between the two continents over the past two centuries. Europe's complete colonization of Africa during the nineteenth century, also known as the Scramble for Africa, produced many unfortunate consequences, the African colonial being one of them.
The African colonial (AC) is a person who by means of their birth or lineage has a direct connection with Africa. However, unlike Africans like me, their worldviews have been largely shaped not by the indigenous beliefs of a specific African tribe but by the ideals of the European imperialism that overwhelmed and dominated Africa during the colonial period. AC's have no real regard for their specific African traditions or histories. AC's use aspects of their African culture as one would use pieces of costume jewelry: things of little or no value that can be thoughtlessly discarded when they become a negative distraction, or used on a whim to decorate oneself in order to seem exotic. (Hint: Obama's Muslim heritage).
On the other hand, AC's strive to be the best at the culture that they inherited from Europe. Throughout the West, they are tops in their professions as lawyers, doctors, engineers, Ivy League professors and business moguls; this is all well and good. It's when they decide to engage us as politicians that things become messy and convoluted.
The African colonial politician (ACP) feigns repulsion towards the hegemonic paradigms of Western civilization. But at the same time, he is completely enamored of the trappings of its aristocracy or elite culture. The ACP blames and caricatures whitey to no end for all that has gone wrong in the world. He convinces the masses that various forms of African socialism are the best way for redressing the problems that European colonialism motivated in Africa. However, as opposed to really being a hard-core African Leftist who actually believes in something, the ACP uses socialist themes as a way to disguise his true ambitions: a complete power grab whereby the "will of the people" becomes completely irrelevant.
Barack Obama is all of the above. The only difference is that he is here playing (colonial) African politics as usual.
In his 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father -- an eloquent piece of political propaganda -- Obama styles himself as a misunderstood intellectual who is deeply affected by the sufferings of black people, especially in America and Africa. In the book, Obama clearly sees himself as an African, not as a black American. And to prove this, he goes on a quest to understand his Kenyan roots. He is extremely thoughtful of his deceased father's legacy; this provides the main clue for understanding Barack Obama.
Barack Obama Sr. was an African colonial to the core; in his case, the apple did not fall far from the tree. All of the telltale signs of Obama's African colonialist attitudes are on full display in the book -- from his feigned antipathy towards Europeans to his view of African tribal associations as distracting elements that get in the way of "progress". (On p. 308 of Dreams From My Father, Obama says that African tribes should be viewed as an "ancient loyalties".)
Like imperialists of Old World Europe, the ACP sees their constituents not as free thinking individuals who best know how to go about achieving and creating their own means for success. Instead, the ACP sees his constituents as a flock of ignorant sheep that need to be led -- oftentimes to their own slaughter.
Like the European imperialist who spawned him, the ACP is a destroyer of all forms of democracy.
Here are a few examples of what the British did in order to create (in 1914) what is now called Nigeria and what Obama is doing to you:
1. Convince the people that "clinging" to any aspect of their cultural (tribal) identity or history is bad and regresses the process of "unity". British Imperialists deeply feared people who were loyal to anything other than the state. "Tribalism" made the imperialists have to work harder to get people to just fall in line. Imperialists pitted tribes against each other in order to create chaos that they then blamed on ethnic rivalry. Today many "educated" Nigerians, having believed that their traditions were irrelevant, remain completely ignorant of their ancestry and the history of their own tribes.
2. Confiscate the wealth and resources of the area that you govern by any means necessary in order to redistribute wealth. The British used this tactic to present themselves as empathetic and benevolent leaders who wanted everyone to have a "fair shake". Imperialists are not interested in equality for all. They are interested in controlling all.
3. Convince the masses that your upper-crust university education naturally puts you on an intellectual plane from which to understand everything even when you understand nothing. Imperialists were able to convince the people that their elite university educations allowed them to understand what Africa needed. Many of today's Nigerians-having followed that lead-hold all sorts of degrees and certificates-but what good are they if you can't find a job?
4. Lie to the people and tell them that progress is being made even though things are clearly becoming worse. One thing that the British forgot to mention to their Nigerian constituents was that one day, the resources that were being used to engineer "progress" (which the British had confiscated from the Africans to begin with!) would eventually run out. After WWII, Western Europe could no longer afford to hold on to their African colonies. So all of the counterfeit countries that the Europeans created were then left high-and-dry to fend for themselves. This was the main reason behind the African independence movements of the1950 and 60's. What will a post-Obama America look like?
5. Use every available media outlet to perpetuate the belief that you and your followers are the enlightened ones-and that those who refuse to support you are just barbaric, uncivilized, ignorant curmudgeons. This speaks for itself.
America, don't be fooled. The Igbos were once made up of a confederacy of clans that ascribed to various forms of democratic government. They took their eyes off the ball and before they knew it, the British were upon them. Also, understand this: the African colonial who is given too much political power can only become one thing: a despot.
L.E. Ikenga can be reached at leikenga@gmail.com.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich
Americans know how to use the moving van to escape high taxes.
By ARTHUR LAFFER and STEPHEN MOORE
With states facing nearly $100 billion in combined budget deficits this year, we're seeing more governors than ever proposing the Barack Obama solution to balancing the budget: Soak the rich. Lawmakers in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and Oregon want to raise income tax rates on the top 1% or 2% or 5% of their citizens. New Illinois Gov. Patrick Quinn wants a 50% increase in the income tax rate on the wealthy because this is the "fair" way to close his state's gaping deficit.
Mr. Quinn and other tax-raising governors have been emboldened by recent studies by left-wing groups like the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities that suggest that "tax increases, particularly tax increases on higher-income families, may be the best available option." A recent letter to New York Gov. David Paterson signed by 100 economists advises the Empire State to "raise tax rates for high income families right away."
Here's the problem for states that want to pry more money out of the wallets of rich people. It never works because people, investment capital and businesses are mobile: They can leave tax-unfriendly states and move to tax-friendly states.
And the evidence that we discovered in our new study for the American Legislative Exchange Council, "Rich States, Poor States," published in March, shows that Americans are more sensitive to high taxes than ever before. The tax differential between low-tax and high-tax states is widening, meaning that a relocation from high-tax California or Ohio, to no-income tax Texas or Tennessee, is all the more financially profitable both in terms of lower tax bills and more job opportunities.
Updating some research from Richard Vedder of Ohio University, we found that from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day including Sundays and holidays moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas. We also found that over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.
Did the greater prosperity in low-tax states happen by chance? Is it coincidence that the two highest tax-rate states in the nation, California and New York, have the biggest fiscal holes to repair? No. Dozens of academic studies -- old and new -- have found clear and irrefutable statistical evidence that high state and local taxes repel jobs and businesses.
Martin Feldstein, Harvard economist and former president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, co-authored a famous study in 1998 called "Can State Taxes Redistribute Income?" This should be required reading for today's state legislators. It concludes: "Since individuals can avoid unfavorable taxes by migrating to jurisdictions that offer more favorable tax conditions, a relatively unfavorable tax will cause gross wages to adjust. . . . A more progressive tax thus induces firms to hire fewer high skilled employees and to hire more low skilled employees."
More recently, Barry W. Poulson of the University of Colorado last year examined many factors that explain why some states grew richer than others from 1964 to 2004 and found "a significant negative impact of higher marginal tax rates on state economic growth." In other words, soaking the rich doesn't work. To the contrary, middle-class workers end up taking the hit.
Finally, there is the issue of whether high-income people move away from states that have high income-tax rates. Examining IRS tax return data by state, E.J. McMahon, a fiscal expert at the Manhattan Institute, measured the impact of large income-tax rate increases on the rich ($200,000 income or more) in Connecticut, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 5% from 4.5%; in New Jersey, which raised its rate in 2004 to 8.97% from 6.35%; and in New York, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 7.7% from 6.85%. Over the period 2002-2005, in each of these states the "soak the rich" tax hike was followed by a significant reduction in the number of rich people paying taxes in these states relative to the national average. Amazingly, these three states ranked 46th, 49th and 50th among all states in the percentage increase in wealthy tax filers in the years after they tried to soak the rich.
This result was all the more remarkable given that these were years when the stock market boomed and Wall Street gains were in the trillions of dollars. Examining data from a 2008 Princeton study on the New Jersey tax hike on the wealthy, we found that there were 4,000 missing half-millionaires in New Jersey after that tax took effect. New Jersey now has one of the largest budget deficits in the nation.
We believe there are three unintended consequences from states raising tax rates on the rich. First, some rich residents sell their homes and leave the state; second, those who stay in the state report less taxable income on their tax returns; and third, some rich people choose not to locate in a high-tax state. Since many rich people also tend to be successful business owners, jobs leave with them or they never arrive in the first place. This is why high income-tax states have such a tough time creating net new jobs for low-income residents and college graduates.
Those who disapprove of tax competition complain that lower state taxes only create a zero-sum competition where states "race to the bottom" and cut services to the poor as taxes fall to zero. They say that tax cutting inevitably means lower quality schools and police protection as lower tax rates mean starvation of public services.
They're wrong, and New Hampshire is our favorite illustration. The Live Free or Die State has no income or sales tax, yet it has high-quality schools and excellent public services. Students in New Hampshire public schools achieve the fourth-highest test scores in the nation -- even though the state spends about $1,000 a year less per resident on state and local government than the average state and, incredibly, $5,000 less per person than New York. And on the other side of the ledger, California in 2007 had the highest-paid classroom teachers in the nation, and yet the Golden State had the second-lowest test scores.
Or consider the fiasco of New Jersey. In the early 1960s, the state had no state income tax and no state sales tax. It was a rapidly growing state attracting people from everywhere and running budget surpluses. Today its income and sales taxes are among the highest in the nation yet it suffers from perpetual deficits and its schools rank among the worst in the nation -- much worse than those in New Hampshire. Most of the massive infusion of tax dollars over the past 40 years has simply enriched the public-employee unions in the Garden State. People are fleeing the state in droves.
One last point: States aren't simply competing with each other. As Texas Gov. Rick Perry recently told us, "Our state is competing with Germany, France, Japan and China for business. We'd better have a pro-growth tax system or those American jobs will be out-sourced." Gov. Perry and Texas have the jobs and prosperity model exactly right. Texas created more new jobs in 2008 than all other 49 states combined. And Texas is the only state other than Georgia and North Dakota that is cutting taxes this year.
The Texas economic model makes a whole lot more sense than the New Jersey model, and we hope the politicians in California, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota and New York realize this before it's too late.
Mr. Laffer is president of Laffer Associates. Mr. Moore is senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal. They are co-authors of "Rich States, Poor States" (American Legislative Exchange Council, 2009).
Americans know how to use the moving van to escape high taxes.
By ARTHUR LAFFER and STEPHEN MOORE
With states facing nearly $100 billion in combined budget deficits this year, we're seeing more governors than ever proposing the Barack Obama solution to balancing the budget: Soak the rich. Lawmakers in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and Oregon want to raise income tax rates on the top 1% or 2% or 5% of their citizens. New Illinois Gov. Patrick Quinn wants a 50% increase in the income tax rate on the wealthy because this is the "fair" way to close his state's gaping deficit.
Mr. Quinn and other tax-raising governors have been emboldened by recent studies by left-wing groups like the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities that suggest that "tax increases, particularly tax increases on higher-income families, may be the best available option." A recent letter to New York Gov. David Paterson signed by 100 economists advises the Empire State to "raise tax rates for high income families right away."
Here's the problem for states that want to pry more money out of the wallets of rich people. It never works because people, investment capital and businesses are mobile: They can leave tax-unfriendly states and move to tax-friendly states.
And the evidence that we discovered in our new study for the American Legislative Exchange Council, "Rich States, Poor States," published in March, shows that Americans are more sensitive to high taxes than ever before. The tax differential between low-tax and high-tax states is widening, meaning that a relocation from high-tax California or Ohio, to no-income tax Texas or Tennessee, is all the more financially profitable both in terms of lower tax bills and more job opportunities.
Updating some research from Richard Vedder of Ohio University, we found that from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day including Sundays and holidays moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas. We also found that over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.
Did the greater prosperity in low-tax states happen by chance? Is it coincidence that the two highest tax-rate states in the nation, California and New York, have the biggest fiscal holes to repair? No. Dozens of academic studies -- old and new -- have found clear and irrefutable statistical evidence that high state and local taxes repel jobs and businesses.
Martin Feldstein, Harvard economist and former president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, co-authored a famous study in 1998 called "Can State Taxes Redistribute Income?" This should be required reading for today's state legislators. It concludes: "Since individuals can avoid unfavorable taxes by migrating to jurisdictions that offer more favorable tax conditions, a relatively unfavorable tax will cause gross wages to adjust. . . . A more progressive tax thus induces firms to hire fewer high skilled employees and to hire more low skilled employees."
More recently, Barry W. Poulson of the University of Colorado last year examined many factors that explain why some states grew richer than others from 1964 to 2004 and found "a significant negative impact of higher marginal tax rates on state economic growth." In other words, soaking the rich doesn't work. To the contrary, middle-class workers end up taking the hit.
Finally, there is the issue of whether high-income people move away from states that have high income-tax rates. Examining IRS tax return data by state, E.J. McMahon, a fiscal expert at the Manhattan Institute, measured the impact of large income-tax rate increases on the rich ($200,000 income or more) in Connecticut, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 5% from 4.5%; in New Jersey, which raised its rate in 2004 to 8.97% from 6.35%; and in New York, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 7.7% from 6.85%. Over the period 2002-2005, in each of these states the "soak the rich" tax hike was followed by a significant reduction in the number of rich people paying taxes in these states relative to the national average. Amazingly, these three states ranked 46th, 49th and 50th among all states in the percentage increase in wealthy tax filers in the years after they tried to soak the rich.
This result was all the more remarkable given that these were years when the stock market boomed and Wall Street gains were in the trillions of dollars. Examining data from a 2008 Princeton study on the New Jersey tax hike on the wealthy, we found that there were 4,000 missing half-millionaires in New Jersey after that tax took effect. New Jersey now has one of the largest budget deficits in the nation.
We believe there are three unintended consequences from states raising tax rates on the rich. First, some rich residents sell their homes and leave the state; second, those who stay in the state report less taxable income on their tax returns; and third, some rich people choose not to locate in a high-tax state. Since many rich people also tend to be successful business owners, jobs leave with them or they never arrive in the first place. This is why high income-tax states have such a tough time creating net new jobs for low-income residents and college graduates.
Those who disapprove of tax competition complain that lower state taxes only create a zero-sum competition where states "race to the bottom" and cut services to the poor as taxes fall to zero. They say that tax cutting inevitably means lower quality schools and police protection as lower tax rates mean starvation of public services.
They're wrong, and New Hampshire is our favorite illustration. The Live Free or Die State has no income or sales tax, yet it has high-quality schools and excellent public services. Students in New Hampshire public schools achieve the fourth-highest test scores in the nation -- even though the state spends about $1,000 a year less per resident on state and local government than the average state and, incredibly, $5,000 less per person than New York. And on the other side of the ledger, California in 2007 had the highest-paid classroom teachers in the nation, and yet the Golden State had the second-lowest test scores.
Or consider the fiasco of New Jersey. In the early 1960s, the state had no state income tax and no state sales tax. It was a rapidly growing state attracting people from everywhere and running budget surpluses. Today its income and sales taxes are among the highest in the nation yet it suffers from perpetual deficits and its schools rank among the worst in the nation -- much worse than those in New Hampshire. Most of the massive infusion of tax dollars over the past 40 years has simply enriched the public-employee unions in the Garden State. People are fleeing the state in droves.
One last point: States aren't simply competing with each other. As Texas Gov. Rick Perry recently told us, "Our state is competing with Germany, France, Japan and China for business. We'd better have a pro-growth tax system or those American jobs will be out-sourced." Gov. Perry and Texas have the jobs and prosperity model exactly right. Texas created more new jobs in 2008 than all other 49 states combined. And Texas is the only state other than Georgia and North Dakota that is cutting taxes this year.
The Texas economic model makes a whole lot more sense than the New Jersey model, and we hope the politicians in California, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota and New York realize this before it's too late.
Mr. Laffer is president of Laffer Associates. Mr. Moore is senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal. They are co-authors of "Rich States, Poor States" (American Legislative Exchange Council, 2009).
Monday, May 04, 2009
The Rich Pay More Taxes: Top 20 Percent Pay Record Share of Income Taxes
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm2420.cfm
The Rich Pay More Taxes: Top 20 Percent Pay Record Share of Income Taxes
by Curtis S. Dubay
WebMemo #2420
Since the passage of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, critics have claimed incessantly that they disproportionately benefited the rich while burdening the poor. Now that the data is in, these claims have been shown to be unquestionably false.
Squeezing the Wealthy Even More
According to a report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the tax cuts significantly increased the share of federal income taxes paid by the highest-earning 20 percent of households compared to their levels in 2000, President Clinton’s final year in office.
In 2006, the latest available year from CBO, the top 20 percent of income earners paid 86.3 percent of all federal income taxes, an all-time high.[1] This is an increase of over 6 percent from 2000, when the top 20 percent paid 81.2 percent. During the same period, the bottom four quintiles all saw their share of the federal income tax burden fall sharply:
* The bottom 20 percent of income earners' share of federal income taxes fell from –1.6 percent in 2000 to –2.8 percent in 2006;
* The next 20 percent's share declined from 1.1 percent to –0.8 percent;
* The middle quintile's share dropped from 5.7 percent to 4.4 percent; and
* The fourth quintile's share decreased from 13.5 percent to 12.9 percent.
Each of these four quintiles' shares was an all-time low.
2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts Removed Low-Income Earners from Roles
The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts removed millions of taxpayers from the federal income tax roles, leaving only those at the top to pay the bill. They lowered every federal income tax rate and created a new 10 percent bracket to further reduce taxes for low-income earners.
While these tax rate cuts lowered taxes for all taxpayers, low-income earners got the biggest cut. In addition to these rate cuts, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expanded the refundable Child Tax Credit from $500 per child to $1,000 per child. The combination of lower tax rates and an expanded Child Tax Credit meant many low-income taxpayers no longer paid any federal income taxes.
Was Greater Income the Cause?
Critics counter that the increase in tax shares for high-earners was due to income increases at the top of the income spectrum. But a closer look at the data shows this just is not the case.
The top 20 percent of earners saw their share of pre-tax income rise from 54.8 percent to 55.7 percent, from 2000 to 2006. During that same period, their share of federal income taxes increased from 81.2 percent to 86.3 percent.
The modest increase in incomes is not large enough to explain the large increase in the share of income taxes paid by the top 20 percent. Rather, the removal of substantial numbers of low-income taxpayers from the federal income tax roles is the real culprit.
Refundable Credits Redistribute Income
The bottom 40 percent of income earners actually paid a negative share of federal income taxes in 2006. In other words, these taxpayers are actually paid money through the tax code. This happens through refundable credits like the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, which result in "refunds" when they are greater than the taxpayer’s total income tax liability.
For instance, if a family with one child has an income tax liability of $300, it can claim the Child Tax Credit, which wipes out their tax liability, and still receive $700 from the IRS for the remainder of the $1,000 credit. On April 15, not only do the bottom 40 percent of all taxpayers pay no taxes, but they actually receive additional income from the IRS.
Refundable credits redistribute income from the top 20 percent of earners to the remaining tax filers, with the bottom 20 percent the prime beneficiaries. The bottom quintile's share of income, measured after taxes, actually increased a whopping 17 percent compared to its pre-tax levels because of the income they got from refundable credits. Comparing shares of income before taxes are paid to after, only the top quintile saw their share of income decline.
Obama's Tax Policies Widen the Gap
President Obama's tax policies would cause federal income taxes paid by the top 20 percent to increase and the shares of the remaining 80 percent to decrease even further. These policies include those passed as part of the stimulus legislation and those included in the President's Budget Blueprint.
The stimulus created the Making Work Pay Credit[2] and expanded the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit. These refundable credits will knock even more taxpayers from the federal income tax roles and send more money to low-income taxpayers.[3] With fewer low- and middle-income taxpayers paying federal income taxes, the burden will shift even further in the direction of top earners.
President Obama also proposed in his Budget Blueprint to increase income taxes on those making over $250,000 by increasing their tax rates on investment income and reducing the amount they could deduct.[4] This would dramatically increase the share of taxes paid by the top 20 percent while the remaining 80 percent of earners would not pay higher taxes as a result of these proposed tax hikes.
Stop Shifting Burden to Top 20 Percent
To stop the shifting of the tax burden to a dwindling number of taxpayers, Congress should:
* Make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent for all taxpayers, not just those making under $250,000. This would slow the shifting of the burden to the top 20 percent.
* Stop creating and expanding refundable credits. Welfare spending and subsidies to low-income earners should be done through traditional spending programs, not hidden in the tax code. This would stop a growing portion of the population from being removed from the tax roles.
* Cut top tax rates to return the shares of income taxes paid by each quintile to their more-sustainable 2000 levels.
On Dangerous Ground
The shifting of the tax burden to a small segment of high-income taxpayers is economically dangerous. The beneficiaries of government services are increasingly those who share little or none of the tax burden to pay for them. As they become more numerous, they put more pressure on Congress for more services. Meanwhile, those who bear most of the burden are being squeezed even more, shrinking their number. The result is a growing group of government beneficiaries clamoring for more of a shrinking group’s wealth. Congress should put an end to this practice.
Curtis S. Dubay is a Senior Analyst in Tax Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
[1]Unless otherwise noted, all data come from Congressional Budget Office, "Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979 to 2006" April 2009, at http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/all_tables.pdf (April 23, 2009).
[2]Curtis S. Dubay, "‘Making Work Pay Credit’ Will Not Stimulate the Economy," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2240, January 26, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm2240.cfm.
[3]Curtis S. Dubay, "Obama's Stimulus Has "Spread the Wealth Around’: Are Tax Hikes Next" Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2354, March 23, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2354.cfm.
[4]U.S. Office of Management and Budget, A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America's Promise (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2009), p. 123, Table S-6, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets
/fy2010_new_era/A_New_Era_of_Responsibility2.pdf (April 23, 2009).
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
* MARCH 3, 2009, 12:06 A.M. ET
The Obama Economy
As the Dow keeps dropping, the President is running out of people to blame.
As 2009 opened, three weeks before Barack Obama took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 9034 on January 2, its highest level since the autumn panic. Yesterday the Dow fell another 4.24% to 6763, for an overall decline of 25% in two months and to its lowest level since 1997. The dismaying message here is that President Obama's policies have become part of the economy's problem.
Americans have welcomed the Obama era in the same spirit of hope the President campaigned on. But after five weeks in office, it's become clear that Mr. Obama's policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery. From punishing business to squandering scarce national public resources, Team Obama is creating more uncertainty and less confidence -- and thus a longer period of recession or subpar growth.
[Review & Outlook]
The Democrats who now run Washington don't want to hear this, because they benefit from blaming all bad economic news on President Bush. And Mr. Obama has inherited an unusual recession deepened by credit problems, both of which will take time to climb out of. But it's also true that the economy has fallen far enough, and long enough, that much of the excess that led to recession is being worked off. Already 15 months old, the current recession will soon match the average length -- and average job loss -- of the last three postwar downturns. What goes down will come up -- unless destructive policies interfere with the sources of potential recovery.
And those sources have been forming for some time. The price of oil and other commodities have fallen by two-thirds since their 2008 summer peak, which has the effect of a major tax cut. The world is awash in liquidity, thanks to monetary ease by the Federal Reserve and other central banks. Monetary policy operates with a lag, but last year's easing will eventually stir economic activity.
Housing prices have fallen 27% from their Case-Shiller peak, or some two-thirds of the way back to their historical trend. While still high, credit spreads are far from their peaks during the panic, and corporate borrowers are again able to tap the credit markets. As equities were signaling with their late 2008 rally and January top, growth should under normal circumstances begin to appear in the second half of this year.
So what has happened in the last two months? The economy has received no great new outside shock. Exchange rates and other prices have been stable, and there are no security crises of note. The reality of a sharp recession has been known and built into stock prices since last year's fourth quarter.
What is new is the unveiling of Mr. Obama's agenda and his approach to governance. Every new President has a finite stock of capital -- financial and political -- to deploy, and amid recession Mr. Obama has more than most. But one negative revelation has been the way he has chosen to spend his scarce resources on income transfers rather than growth promotion. Most of his "stimulus" spending was devoted to social programs, rather than public works, and nearly all of the tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than to improving incentives to work or invest.
His Treasury has been making a similar mistake with its financial bailout plans. The banking system needs to work through its losses, and one necessary use of public capital is to assist in burning down those bad assets as fast as possible. Yet most of Team Obama's ministrations so far have gone toward triage and life support, rather than repair and recovery.
AIG yesterday received its fourth "rescue," including $70 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program cash, without any clear business direction. (See here.) Citigroup's restructuring last week added not a dollar of new capital, and also no clear direction. Perhaps the imminent Treasury "stress tests" will clear the decks, but until they do the banks are all living in fear of becoming the next AIG. All of this squanders public money that could better go toward burning down bank debt.
The market has notably plunged since Mr. Obama introduced his budget last week, and that should be no surprise. The document was a declaration of hostility toward capitalists across the economy. Health-care stocks have dived on fears of new government mandates and price controls. Private lenders to students have been told they're no longer wanted. Anyone who uses carbon energy has been warned to expect a huge tax increase from cap and trade. And every risk-taker and investor now knows that another tax increase will slam the economy in 2011, unless Mr. Obama lets Speaker Nancy Pelosi impose one even earlier.
Meanwhile, Congress demands more bank lending even as it assails lenders and threatens to let judges rewrite mortgage contracts. The powers in Congress -- unrebuked by Mr. Obama -- are ridiculing and punishing the very capitalists who are essential to a sustainable recovery. The result has been a capital strike, and the return of the fear from last year that we could face a far deeper downturn. This is no way to nurture a wounded economy back to health.
Listening to Mr. Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, on the weekend, we couldn't help but wonder if they appreciate any of this. They seem preoccupied with going to the barricades against Republicans who wield little power, or picking a fight with Rush Limbaugh, as if this is the kind of economic leadership Americans want.
Perhaps they're reading the polls and figure they have two or three years before voters stop blaming Republicans and Mr. Bush for the economy. Even if that's right in the long run, in the meantime their assault on business and investors is delaying a recovery and ensuring that the expansion will be weaker than it should be when it finally does arrive.
Friday, February 27, 2009
The 2% Illusion
Take everything they earn, and it still won't be enough.
* Article
President Obama has laid out the most ambitious and expensive domestic agenda since LBJ, and now all he has to do is figure out how to pay for it. On Tuesday, he left the impression that we need merely end "tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans," and he promised that households earning less than $250,000 won't see their taxes increased by "one single dime."
[Review & Outlook] AP
This is going to be some trick. Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can't possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama's new spending ambitions.
Consider the IRS data for 2006, the most recent year that such tax data are available and a good year for the economy and "the wealthiest 2%." Roughly 3.8 million filers had adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 in 2006. (That's about 7% of all returns; the data aren't broken down at the $250,000 point.) These people paid about $522 billion in income taxes, or roughly 62% of all federal individual income receipts. The richest 1% -- about 1.65 million filers making above $388,806 -- paid some $408 billion, or 39.9% of all income tax revenues, while earning about 22% of all reported U.S. income.
Note that federal income taxes are already "progressive" with a 35% top marginal rate, and that Mr. Obama is (so far) proposing to raise it only to 39.6%, plus another two percentage points in hidden deduction phase-outs. He'd also raise capital gains and dividend rates, but those both yield far less revenue than the income tax. These combined increases won't come close to raising the hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue that Mr. Obama is going to need.
The Opinion Journal Widget
Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.
But let's not stop at a 42% top rate; as a thought experiment, let's go all the way. A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.
Fast forward to this year (and 2010) when the Wall Street meltdown and recession are going to mean far few taxpayers earning more than $500,000. Profits are plunging, businesses are cutting or eliminating dividends, hedge funds are rolling up, and, most of all, capital nationwide is on strike. Raising taxes now will thus yield far less revenue than it would have in 2006.
Mr. Obama is of course counting on an economic recovery. And he's also assuming along with the new liberal economic consensus that taxes don't matter to growth or job creation. The truth, though, is that they do. Small- and medium-sized businesses are the nation's primary employers, and lower individual tax rates have induced thousands of them to shift from filing under the corporate tax system to the individual system, often as limited liability companies or Subchapter S corporations. The Tax Foundation calculates that merely restoring the higher, Clinton-era tax rates on the top two brackets would hit 45% to 55% of small-business income, depending on how inclusively "small business" is defined. These owners will find a way to declare less taxable income.
The bottom line is that Mr. Obama is selling the country on a 2% illusion. Unwinding the U.S. commitment in Iraq and allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire can't possibly pay for his agenda. Taxes on the not-so-rich will need to rise as well.
On that point, by the way, it's unclear why Mr. Obama thinks his climate-change scheme won't hit all Americans with higher taxes. Selling the right to emit greenhouse gases amounts to a steep new tax on most types of energy and, therefore, on all Americans who use energy. There's a reason that Charlie Rangel's Ways and Means panel, which writes tax law, is holding hearings this week on cap-and-trade regulation.
Mr. Obama is very good at portraying his agenda as nothing more than center-left pragmatism. But pragmatists don't ignore the data. And the reality is that the only way to pay for Mr. Obama's ambitions is to reach ever deeper into the pockets of the American middle class.
Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A12
Take everything they earn, and it still won't be enough.
* Article
President Obama has laid out the most ambitious and expensive domestic agenda since LBJ, and now all he has to do is figure out how to pay for it. On Tuesday, he left the impression that we need merely end "tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans," and he promised that households earning less than $250,000 won't see their taxes increased by "one single dime."
[Review & Outlook] AP
This is going to be some trick. Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can't possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama's new spending ambitions.
Consider the IRS data for 2006, the most recent year that such tax data are available and a good year for the economy and "the wealthiest 2%." Roughly 3.8 million filers had adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 in 2006. (That's about 7% of all returns; the data aren't broken down at the $250,000 point.) These people paid about $522 billion in income taxes, or roughly 62% of all federal individual income receipts. The richest 1% -- about 1.65 million filers making above $388,806 -- paid some $408 billion, or 39.9% of all income tax revenues, while earning about 22% of all reported U.S. income.
Note that federal income taxes are already "progressive" with a 35% top marginal rate, and that Mr. Obama is (so far) proposing to raise it only to 39.6%, plus another two percentage points in hidden deduction phase-outs. He'd also raise capital gains and dividend rates, but those both yield far less revenue than the income tax. These combined increases won't come close to raising the hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue that Mr. Obama is going to need.
The Opinion Journal Widget
Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.
But let's not stop at a 42% top rate; as a thought experiment, let's go all the way. A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.
Fast forward to this year (and 2010) when the Wall Street meltdown and recession are going to mean far few taxpayers earning more than $500,000. Profits are plunging, businesses are cutting or eliminating dividends, hedge funds are rolling up, and, most of all, capital nationwide is on strike. Raising taxes now will thus yield far less revenue than it would have in 2006.
Mr. Obama is of course counting on an economic recovery. And he's also assuming along with the new liberal economic consensus that taxes don't matter to growth or job creation. The truth, though, is that they do. Small- and medium-sized businesses are the nation's primary employers, and lower individual tax rates have induced thousands of them to shift from filing under the corporate tax system to the individual system, often as limited liability companies or Subchapter S corporations. The Tax Foundation calculates that merely restoring the higher, Clinton-era tax rates on the top two brackets would hit 45% to 55% of small-business income, depending on how inclusively "small business" is defined. These owners will find a way to declare less taxable income.
The bottom line is that Mr. Obama is selling the country on a 2% illusion. Unwinding the U.S. commitment in Iraq and allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire can't possibly pay for his agenda. Taxes on the not-so-rich will need to rise as well.
On that point, by the way, it's unclear why Mr. Obama thinks his climate-change scheme won't hit all Americans with higher taxes. Selling the right to emit greenhouse gases amounts to a steep new tax on most types of energy and, therefore, on all Americans who use energy. There's a reason that Charlie Rangel's Ways and Means panel, which writes tax law, is holding hearings this week on cap-and-trade regulation.
Mr. Obama is very good at portraying his agenda as nothing more than center-left pragmatism. But pragmatists don't ignore the data. And the reality is that the only way to pay for Mr. Obama's ambitions is to reach ever deeper into the pockets of the American middle class.
Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A12
Thursday, January 15, 2009
'Kelly Girl Strategy' undermined employment standards - UB Reporter
This is what they think in libland
'Kelly Girl Strategy' undermined employment standards - UB Reporter
Kelly Girl strategy’ undermined employment standards
*
Feedback icon
*
“It was the ‘Kelly Girl’—the bright-eyed, white-gloved icon of the post-war temp industry—that helped undo the traditional employment relationship based on a long-term agreement between employer and employee.”
Erin Hatton
visiting professor of sociology
By PATRICIA DONOVAN
Published: December 17, 2008
A UB labor and employment sociologist says that before we can resolve the economic crisis, we need to understand how we got into it, then get out and stay out.
Erin Hatton, visiting professor of sociology, says there’s plenty of blame to go around, but she points her finger directly at the temporary employment industry.
“For 50 years, the temporary employment industry—now one of the fastest growing sectors of the American economy—has deliberately and strenuously worked against government regulators, unions and public opinion to divest business of its investment in permanent employees,” she says.
“In doing so, it has helped change the very meaning of work in America, undermining employment standards for all workers.”
Hatton says her work illuminates one of the paths that brought us to the point of economic collapse—a path along which workers became commodities and work became abstracted from the workplace.
“If we understand this,” she says, “we can also grasp such things as how real home mortgages could become default swap mirages. My research offers a diagnosis of the problem and describes how something like this could happen. It also offers a prescription for change that will keep us out of this mess in the future.
“Perhaps surprisingly to some,” Hatton says, “it was the ‘Kelly Girl’—the bright-eyed, white-gloved icon of the post-war temp industry—that helped undo the traditional employment relationship based on a long-term agreement between employer and employee.”
As advertised, the Kelly Girl—despite her low pay, lack of job security or employment benefits—was possessed of a ubiquitous smile and an eagerness to please. She was, in temp parlance, the ideal employee.
Hatton says most observers think the emergence of the temp industry after World War II was a natural response to such structural changes in the economy as globalization and deindustrialization, but she says that is not the case.
“Although the temp industry itself fosters this view, the industry was never driven by the market alone,” she says
“Leaders of the temp industry developed and aggressively marketed a ‘no strings attached’ model of work in which permanent employees—with their job security, health benefits and vacation days—were considered a drain on the bottom line,” she says.
“To reduce this profit drain, industry leaders sold owners on the idea of replacing permanent employees with temps,” Hatton says.
“Not only that, they taught employers how to do this by, for example, shifting permanent employees to the payrolls of temp agencies or by outsourcing whole departments—like the mailroom—to a temp agency.”
She points out that this didn’t happen in the 1990s, but in the 1960s and ’70s, long before these strategies had become what they are now, a normal way of operating in the business world.
“Because that ‘standard’ long-term employment agreement was only promised to certain workers—that is, white men—the temp industry could easily gain entry into the labor market by selling temporary work as ‘women’s work,’” she says. So they did.
“Although the temp industry employed substantial numbers of men,” says Hatton, “early industry leaders sold temp work—using the ‘Kelly Girl’ icon—as perfect for white, middle-class housewives ‘with a little extra time on their hands.’”
In so doing, she says the industry established an entirely new category of work—at once ‘respectable’ (white, middle class) and ‘marginal’ (part time, low paid, no benefits, expendable).
“Later, as the temp industry expanded across the labor market beyond the pink-collar sector to include factory workers, engineers, doctors, lawyers and even CEOS,” Hatton says, “the temp industry’s model of work helped undermine employment standards for all workers, including those once protected by the traditional standard.”
Hatton’s research focuses on work, poverty and public policy, including such topics as the changing nature of employment, the modern strikebreaking industry and businesses that profit off the poor. She is co-author of “The Coffee Pot Wars: Unions and Firm Restructuring in the Hotel Industry” in “Low-Wage America: How Employers are Reshaping Opportunity in the Workplace” (2003, Russell Sage Foundation). The title of her forthcoming book is “The Temp Industry and the Transformation of Work in America since World War II,” to be published by Temple University Press.
'Kelly Girl Strategy' undermined employment standards - UB Reporter
Kelly Girl strategy’ undermined employment standards
*
Feedback icon
*
“It was the ‘Kelly Girl’—the bright-eyed, white-gloved icon of the post-war temp industry—that helped undo the traditional employment relationship based on a long-term agreement between employer and employee.”
Erin Hatton
visiting professor of sociology
By PATRICIA DONOVAN
Published: December 17, 2008
A UB labor and employment sociologist says that before we can resolve the economic crisis, we need to understand how we got into it, then get out and stay out.
Erin Hatton, visiting professor of sociology, says there’s plenty of blame to go around, but she points her finger directly at the temporary employment industry.
“For 50 years, the temporary employment industry—now one of the fastest growing sectors of the American economy—has deliberately and strenuously worked against government regulators, unions and public opinion to divest business of its investment in permanent employees,” she says.
“In doing so, it has helped change the very meaning of work in America, undermining employment standards for all workers.”
Hatton says her work illuminates one of the paths that brought us to the point of economic collapse—a path along which workers became commodities and work became abstracted from the workplace.
“If we understand this,” she says, “we can also grasp such things as how real home mortgages could become default swap mirages. My research offers a diagnosis of the problem and describes how something like this could happen. It also offers a prescription for change that will keep us out of this mess in the future.
“Perhaps surprisingly to some,” Hatton says, “it was the ‘Kelly Girl’—the bright-eyed, white-gloved icon of the post-war temp industry—that helped undo the traditional employment relationship based on a long-term agreement between employer and employee.”
As advertised, the Kelly Girl—despite her low pay, lack of job security or employment benefits—was possessed of a ubiquitous smile and an eagerness to please. She was, in temp parlance, the ideal employee.
Hatton says most observers think the emergence of the temp industry after World War II was a natural response to such structural changes in the economy as globalization and deindustrialization, but she says that is not the case.
“Although the temp industry itself fosters this view, the industry was never driven by the market alone,” she says
“Leaders of the temp industry developed and aggressively marketed a ‘no strings attached’ model of work in which permanent employees—with their job security, health benefits and vacation days—were considered a drain on the bottom line,” she says.
“To reduce this profit drain, industry leaders sold owners on the idea of replacing permanent employees with temps,” Hatton says.
“Not only that, they taught employers how to do this by, for example, shifting permanent employees to the payrolls of temp agencies or by outsourcing whole departments—like the mailroom—to a temp agency.”
She points out that this didn’t happen in the 1990s, but in the 1960s and ’70s, long before these strategies had become what they are now, a normal way of operating in the business world.
“Because that ‘standard’ long-term employment agreement was only promised to certain workers—that is, white men—the temp industry could easily gain entry into the labor market by selling temporary work as ‘women’s work,’” she says. So they did.
“Although the temp industry employed substantial numbers of men,” says Hatton, “early industry leaders sold temp work—using the ‘Kelly Girl’ icon—as perfect for white, middle-class housewives ‘with a little extra time on their hands.’”
In so doing, she says the industry established an entirely new category of work—at once ‘respectable’ (white, middle class) and ‘marginal’ (part time, low paid, no benefits, expendable).
“Later, as the temp industry expanded across the labor market beyond the pink-collar sector to include factory workers, engineers, doctors, lawyers and even CEOS,” Hatton says, “the temp industry’s model of work helped undermine employment standards for all workers, including those once protected by the traditional standard.”
Hatton’s research focuses on work, poverty and public policy, including such topics as the changing nature of employment, the modern strikebreaking industry and businesses that profit off the poor. She is co-author of “The Coffee Pot Wars: Unions and Firm Restructuring in the Hotel Industry” in “Low-Wage America: How Employers are Reshaping Opportunity in the Workplace” (2003, Russell Sage Foundation). The title of her forthcoming book is “The Temp Industry and the Transformation of Work in America since World War II,” to be published by Temple University Press.
Friday, December 05, 2008
Its will be back to school time soon for the spring semester. Here is a small quiz I found:
Question 1
Business profits average about six percent of national income and keep the nation from having an economy like Cuba’s. Federal, state and local governments consume about 44 percent of national income, versus only 12 percent in 1930.
Therefore, which of the following should be reduced?
a) Corporate profits
b) Government spending
If you selected “a,” you’re in line with mainstream thinking. Congrats! You get a free subscription to USA Today or a comic book of your choice, whichever you can read without moving your lips.
Question 2
All of the experiments with collectivism in this country, such as the communitarian communities of New Harmony and Oneida, quickly failed due to the inherent fatal flaws of central planning and the collective ownership of property. Similar experiments by nation states have resulted in tyranny, mass starvation, widespread poverty and genocide.
Therefore, what is best for the nation?
a) More collectivism
b) Less collectivism
Correct answer: “a.” If this was your answer, you should think about applying for a job at The New York Times.
Question 3
Medical care and medical insurance are much more costly than they would otherwise be, due to the government virtually destroying a consumer market in healthcare over the last 66 years and shifting costs to third parties.
What should be done to make medical care/insurance more available and less expensive?
a) Nationalize all remnants of a consumer market.
b) Restore a consumer market.
Correct answer: “a.” Wow, your intellect is awesome if you got this one correct. No doubt, in order to be intellectually consistent (you know what that means, right?) you want the government to nationalize the food industry and require all Americans to eat at government commissaries. Burp! Excuse me.
Question 4
The federal government is insolvent and is printing money to hide the fact. In addition, it has over $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare, or over $700,000 for each American under the age of 18.
What should be done about this?
a) Give Americans more free stuff and entitlements.
b) Give Americans less free stuff and fewer entitlements.
Correct answer: “a.” You should run for office if you got this one right.
Question 5
Inflation is an insidious, hidden tax. In the 137 years from 1776 to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, inflation averaged almost zero. Since 1913, inflation has increased dramatically, especially after the gold standard was removed. In the last half-century, the dollar has lost about 90 percent of its value, and the “money” supply has increased by about 3,000 percent. Along with government housing policies, easy money was the primary cause of the latest housing bubble and subsequent collapse. Government printing presses are now running red hot to pay the cost of the bailout. High inflation will inevitably follow the current economic downturn, thus penalizing savers, who are the backbone of a healthy economy.
So, can you trust the government with your money?
a) Yes.
b) No.
Correct answer: “a.”
Question 6
Fatherless families are a leading cause of poverty, school dropouts, crime, emotional problems, and bad grammar. A leading cause of fatherless families is men who walk away from their parental responsibilities and encourage the mothers of their children to “marry” the state instead of them.
Therefore, what government action would have the highest payoff in reducing poverty, school dropouts, crime, and emotional problems?
a) Increase welfare, K-12 education, child care, tutors, and psychotropic drugs.
b) Remove incentives for men to walk away and for women to marry the state.
Correct answer: “a.”
Question 7
Barack Obama would get a perfect score on this test by choosing answer “a” for all of the preceding questions.
Did you vote for him?
a) Yes.
b) No.
If you answered “a” to the above and to every other question, you are solidly in the mainstream.
If you answered “b” to every question, that explains why you feel like a stranger in a strange land. It also explains why you yell at the TV, mutter at the newspaper, are seen as a crackpot and are thinking of emigrating.
Incidentally, I failed the test.
An author and columnist, Mr. Cantoni can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.
Question 1
Business profits average about six percent of national income and keep the nation from having an economy like Cuba’s. Federal, state and local governments consume about 44 percent of national income, versus only 12 percent in 1930.
Therefore, which of the following should be reduced?
a) Corporate profits
b) Government spending
If you selected “a,” you’re in line with mainstream thinking. Congrats! You get a free subscription to USA Today or a comic book of your choice, whichever you can read without moving your lips.
Question 2
All of the experiments with collectivism in this country, such as the communitarian communities of New Harmony and Oneida, quickly failed due to the inherent fatal flaws of central planning and the collective ownership of property. Similar experiments by nation states have resulted in tyranny, mass starvation, widespread poverty and genocide.
Therefore, what is best for the nation?
a) More collectivism
b) Less collectivism
Correct answer: “a.” If this was your answer, you should think about applying for a job at The New York Times.
Question 3
Medical care and medical insurance are much more costly than they would otherwise be, due to the government virtually destroying a consumer market in healthcare over the last 66 years and shifting costs to third parties.
What should be done to make medical care/insurance more available and less expensive?
a) Nationalize all remnants of a consumer market.
b) Restore a consumer market.
Correct answer: “a.” Wow, your intellect is awesome if you got this one correct. No doubt, in order to be intellectually consistent (you know what that means, right?) you want the government to nationalize the food industry and require all Americans to eat at government commissaries. Burp! Excuse me.
Question 4
The federal government is insolvent and is printing money to hide the fact. In addition, it has over $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare, or over $700,000 for each American under the age of 18.
What should be done about this?
a) Give Americans more free stuff and entitlements.
b) Give Americans less free stuff and fewer entitlements.
Correct answer: “a.” You should run for office if you got this one right.
Question 5
Inflation is an insidious, hidden tax. In the 137 years from 1776 to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, inflation averaged almost zero. Since 1913, inflation has increased dramatically, especially after the gold standard was removed. In the last half-century, the dollar has lost about 90 percent of its value, and the “money” supply has increased by about 3,000 percent. Along with government housing policies, easy money was the primary cause of the latest housing bubble and subsequent collapse. Government printing presses are now running red hot to pay the cost of the bailout. High inflation will inevitably follow the current economic downturn, thus penalizing savers, who are the backbone of a healthy economy.
So, can you trust the government with your money?
a) Yes.
b) No.
Correct answer: “a.”
Question 6
Fatherless families are a leading cause of poverty, school dropouts, crime, emotional problems, and bad grammar. A leading cause of fatherless families is men who walk away from their parental responsibilities and encourage the mothers of their children to “marry” the state instead of them.
Therefore, what government action would have the highest payoff in reducing poverty, school dropouts, crime, and emotional problems?
a) Increase welfare, K-12 education, child care, tutors, and psychotropic drugs.
b) Remove incentives for men to walk away and for women to marry the state.
Correct answer: “a.”
Question 7
Barack Obama would get a perfect score on this test by choosing answer “a” for all of the preceding questions.
Did you vote for him?
a) Yes.
b) No.
If you answered “a” to the above and to every other question, you are solidly in the mainstream.
If you answered “b” to every question, that explains why you feel like a stranger in a strange land. It also explains why you yell at the TV, mutter at the newspaper, are seen as a crackpot and are thinking of emigrating.
Incidentally, I failed the test.
An author and columnist, Mr. Cantoni can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Commentary: The poverty of Democrats' ideas for cities
By Glenn Beck
CNN
Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font
Editor's note: Glenn Beck is on CNN Headline News nightly at 7 and 9 ET and also hosts a conservative national radio talk show.
Glenn Beck
Glenn Beck says Democrats have ruled many of the poorest cities for too long, and it's time for a change.
NEW YORK (CNN) -- "I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty but leading them or driving them out of it."
What hate-mongering politician would be so politically incorrect as to suggest that things like higher minimum wages and more government handouts don't actually help the poor? I'll identify the culprit at the end of this column, but for now, I'm more interested in figuring out why that statement sounds so controversial.
Poverty is one of the few national issues that, at least on the surface, unites us all. It's not a political condition; it's a human one. After all, when's the last time you've heard a politician campaign on a pro-poverty platform?
But although the problem may unite us, the solutions don't. And perhaps nothing illustrates that better than what's been happening in Detroit, Michigan, and Buffalo, New York.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly a third of the residents in those cities are living beneath the poverty line, the highest rates among large cities in the entire country.
No matter what side of the political aisle you're on, that is nothing short of appalling. Yet if you ask people what we should do about it, you'll probably hear answers that inexplicably break down right along party lines.
Is there a perfect answer? Probably not. But what bothers me is that people stubbornly stick to their solution, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it's not working.
For example, Detroit, whose mayor has been indicted on felony charges, hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961. Buffalo has been even more stubborn. It
Unfortunately, those two cities may be alone at the top of the poverty rate list, but they're not alone in their love for Democrats. Cincinnati, Ohio (third on the poverty rate list), hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1984. Cleveland, Ohio (fourth on the list), has been led by a Democrat since 1989. St. Louis, Missouri (sixth), hasn't had a Republican since 1949, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (eighth), since 1908, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (ninth), since 1952 and Newark, New Jersey (10th), since 1907.
The only two cities in the top 10 that I didn't mention (Miami, Florida, and El Paso, Texas) haven't had Republicans in office either -- just Democrats, independents or nonpartisans.
Over the past 50 years, the eight cities listed above have had Republican leadership for a combined 36 years. The rest of the time -- a combined 364 years -- they've been led by Democrats.
Five of the 10 cities with the highest poverty rates (Detroit, Buffalo, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Philadelphia and Newark) have had a Democratic stranglehold since at least 1961: more than 45 years. Two of the cities (Milwaukee and Newark) have been electing Democrats since the first Model T rolled off the assembly line in 1908.
Two cities, 100 years, all Democrats.
If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, the asylums in those cities must be as full as the soup kitchens.
Not too long ago, I had the great honor of being invited to a charity dinner hosted by Chris Gardner. He's the guy whose rags-to-riches life was portrayed by Will Smith in the movie "Pursuit of Happyness." Chris had been on my show a few times, and I've always admired his story and his message of hope through personal responsibility.
As I prepared for the dinner and looked into Chris' charity, I started to get nervous. The roster was filled with liberals, most of whom would probably hate me. Hillary Clinton, Mario Cuomo, Alan Alda, Kenneth Cole and Charles Grodin were just a few of the people I was worried about running into.
But the question I kept asking myself was, why? Why can't people from wildly different political stripes come together in support of a common cause without feeling alienated? Why is an issue like poverty "owned" by one political party?
I consider myself a conservative, but I consider myself an American and a human being first. When people whom I normally agree with screw things up, I call them on it. Yet the people in these cities apparently don't. Newark keeps drinking the Kool-Aid, electing the same people with the same ideas, slipping down the poverty list (along with the "Places Never to Visit Unless it's the Airport" list) and wondering why.
We've talked a lot about "change" in this country recently, but there's a much more important catchphrase that we've neglected: "All politics is local." Maybe instead of focusing so much on who we put in charge of our country, we should focus more on who we put in charge of our cities.
Oh, and before I forget. The hateful politician who suggested that we should be "driving" or "leading" the poor out of poverty? It was Benjamin Franklin.
Good thing he never tried to run for mayor of Newark
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer
By Glenn Beck
CNN
Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font
Editor's note: Glenn Beck is on CNN Headline News nightly at 7 and 9 ET and also hosts a conservative national radio talk show.
Glenn Beck
Glenn Beck says Democrats have ruled many of the poorest cities for too long, and it's time for a change.
NEW YORK (CNN) -- "I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty but leading them or driving them out of it."
What hate-mongering politician would be so politically incorrect as to suggest that things like higher minimum wages and more government handouts don't actually help the poor? I'll identify the culprit at the end of this column, but for now, I'm more interested in figuring out why that statement sounds so controversial.
Poverty is one of the few national issues that, at least on the surface, unites us all. It's not a political condition; it's a human one. After all, when's the last time you've heard a politician campaign on a pro-poverty platform?
But although the problem may unite us, the solutions don't. And perhaps nothing illustrates that better than what's been happening in Detroit, Michigan, and Buffalo, New York.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly a third of the residents in those cities are living beneath the poverty line, the highest rates among large cities in the entire country.
No matter what side of the political aisle you're on, that is nothing short of appalling. Yet if you ask people what we should do about it, you'll probably hear answers that inexplicably break down right along party lines.
Is there a perfect answer? Probably not. But what bothers me is that people stubbornly stick to their solution, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it's not working.
For example, Detroit, whose mayor has been indicted on felony charges, hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961. Buffalo has been even more stubborn. It
Unfortunately, those two cities may be alone at the top of the poverty rate list, but they're not alone in their love for Democrats. Cincinnati, Ohio (third on the poverty rate list), hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1984. Cleveland, Ohio (fourth on the list), has been led by a Democrat since 1989. St. Louis, Missouri (sixth), hasn't had a Republican since 1949, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (eighth), since 1908, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (ninth), since 1952 and Newark, New Jersey (10th), since 1907.
The only two cities in the top 10 that I didn't mention (Miami, Florida, and El Paso, Texas) haven't had Republicans in office either -- just Democrats, independents or nonpartisans.
Over the past 50 years, the eight cities listed above have had Republican leadership for a combined 36 years. The rest of the time -- a combined 364 years -- they've been led by Democrats.
Five of the 10 cities with the highest poverty rates (Detroit, Buffalo, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Philadelphia and Newark) have had a Democratic stranglehold since at least 1961: more than 45 years. Two of the cities (Milwaukee and Newark) have been electing Democrats since the first Model T rolled off the assembly line in 1908.
Two cities, 100 years, all Democrats.
If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, the asylums in those cities must be as full as the soup kitchens.
Not too long ago, I had the great honor of being invited to a charity dinner hosted by Chris Gardner. He's the guy whose rags-to-riches life was portrayed by Will Smith in the movie "Pursuit of Happyness." Chris had been on my show a few times, and I've always admired his story and his message of hope through personal responsibility.
As I prepared for the dinner and looked into Chris' charity, I started to get nervous. The roster was filled with liberals, most of whom would probably hate me. Hillary Clinton, Mario Cuomo, Alan Alda, Kenneth Cole and Charles Grodin were just a few of the people I was worried about running into.
But the question I kept asking myself was, why? Why can't people from wildly different political stripes come together in support of a common cause without feeling alienated? Why is an issue like poverty "owned" by one political party?
I consider myself a conservative, but I consider myself an American and a human being first. When people whom I normally agree with screw things up, I call them on it. Yet the people in these cities apparently don't. Newark keeps drinking the Kool-Aid, electing the same people with the same ideas, slipping down the poverty list (along with the "Places Never to Visit Unless it's the Airport" list) and wondering why.
We've talked a lot about "change" in this country recently, but there's a much more important catchphrase that we've neglected: "All politics is local." Maybe instead of focusing so much on who we put in charge of our country, we should focus more on who we put in charge of our cities.
Oh, and before I forget. The hateful politician who suggested that we should be "driving" or "leading" the poor out of poverty? It was Benjamin Franklin.
Good thing he never tried to run for mayor of Newark
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer
Thursday, September 11, 2008
You Pay Too Much Tax: A Budget Breakdown
By Andrew Min • Sep 11th, 2008
It’s the fashionable thing for politicians to complain about high taxes and unbalanced budgets. Are we paying too much tax?
How much are you being taxed?
The national average income as of 2007 was, according to a census.gov PDF, $50,233 (see page 14). A dinkytown.net tool puts this at approximately $5762 in federal income tax for a single, male, head of the household. Note that this is just your income tax. No sales taxes or any other type of tax is included here. Additionally, this does not include state, county, or municipal tax, so you most likely pay much more (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington state, and Wyoming are the only states that don’t have a state income tax, so chances are that you do pay something).
While we’re at it, let’s also talk about the “rich”. The highest tax bracket is for people who make $350,000 or more, so we’ll use $350,000 as our “rich” income. According to the dinkytown.net generator, that means the rich man pays $95,423 in tax. Again, this is minus sales taxes and any non-federal income tax for a single, male, head of the household.
Now, our tax goes to the president’s budget. Today, the budget is reckoned at about $3.1 trillion, which has a deficit of about $407 billion. I then went to the Wikipedia budget article and looked up the cost of each program. Then, I calculated what percentage each was of the federal budget. Then, I multiplied the decimal form of each percentage into the income (50233 and 350000) to get the resulting amounts of how much each cost. Since these are rounded estimates, the numbers don’t quite match up. They are rough numbers, not the exact numbers. I’m not good enough at Excel for that.
Speaking of Excel, I then compiled everything into a nice spreadsheet (link) and PDF (link), hosted by the wonderful folks at Scribd. So if you like spreadsheets, stop reading now and go take a look. If not, on to the results.
Social Security: Most expensive
Looking at the tax breakdown, it’s obvious that the most expensive part of the budget is Social Security (Iraqi War and War on Terror isn’t covered in the budget, but I’ll get to that in a bit). Social Security, our retirement pension plan, costs $644 billion, or 20.77% of our budget. The median income taxpayer pays approximately $10,569.02 a year (Social Security + Social Security Administration). Unfortunately, you don’t get anything until you’re about 65, according to Wikipedia. 65. In that time, the government has forced you to pay $10,569.02 a year. That means you pay the government $686,986.30 before you even get a penny back. And then, you only have about fifteen years (if you’re lucky) to enjoy that money. Sure, it supposedly keeps you out of poverty. But maybe you wouldn’t be in that position in the first place if you could just get your own money (and perhaps invest it in the stock market, government bonds, or even get some interest).
It’s even worse for the rich guy. He pays $73,640 a year for Social Security, meaning that he pays 4,786,600 before he even sees a cent. That’s almost five million dollars. And he doesn’t even get all of it back! In other words, the rich guy is working hard all of his life, then doesn’t even get all of the money he earned. It’s not like he stole it. He earned it.
Medicare: A killer
Medicare is almost as bad as Social Security. Weighing in at $408 billion (13.16% of the budget), Medicare takes the bronze medal for most expensive program on the books. It’s a great idea, but you don’t get the benefits until you’re 65, like Social Security. And like Social Security, Medicare costs a lot for the median taxpayer, who pays $6,610.66 a year, forcing him to pay $429,693.08 before he gets to see his benefits. Additionally, what if he invested in the stock market? What if he had put $400,000 in a startup called Google? I’ll tell you: he’d be sitting pretty on about $2,000,000.
Again, the rich man pays a lot as well. He pays $46,060 a year for a health plan he may not even need or be eligible for. He basically pays $2,993,900 before he’s even eligible. Sure, he’s helping to pay for the median taxpayer’s health care. But maybe if the median taxpayer had the money he spent on Medicare, he might not even need the help. Maybe. Not definitely. Maybe.
Education: $59.2 billion on failing schools?
We spend approximately $59.2 billion (1.91% of the budget) on federally funded education. It’s actually not a bad deal, really. It only costs the median taxpayer $959.45 a year to send his kid to a public school. However, it’s actually a little more skewed. If you have four kids born two years apart, you have your kids in a public school system for about twenty-four years. The Cato Institute says that 41% of all private schools cost $2,500 annually. Since each kid is in school for 18 years, that’s $180,000. But wait. You keep on paying education taxes even after your kids don’t go to school. Suddenly, the price is $76,756 (if you live 80 years) for all four kids. That’s still about a lot less. But wait. We haven’t taken into account state or municipal education taxes. Suddenly, private school might be more affordable. But only if the government (all of the governments) refunded all of your educational money. I’ll take a slightly more expensive but good private school over a failing cheaper public school. Why not at least give people the opportunity to choose?
War on Iraq and Terror
I can’t do an estimate on this, since it’s not actually part of the budget (it’s an appropriation). However, if you look at the federal budget in 1944, it’s obvious that all wars cost a huge percentage of the budget. Obviously, no one (in hindsight) believes that we shouldn’t have fought World War II because it cost too much. Therefore, cost cannot be the primary reason for not fighting a war. If you have issues with the war itself (maybe the direction it’s heading, or the fact that there are supposedly no objectives), that’s one thing. But don’t complain about the cost. It’s expensive. So was World War II. Cost can not be the sole reason of why we stop fighting the war on terror.
Debt costs a lot
If you haven’t noticed, one of the most expensive things on the budget ($260 billion, 8.39%) is the interest on the National Debt. As it grows, it gets much more expensive. As one of the fellas from Ocean’s 12 put it, “Boy, the interest just kills you”. Obviously, the National Debt needs to be paid off. There are several ways to do this.
The first way (the “liberal” way) is to stop the war in Iraq and on Terror. The Department of Defense and the Global War on Terror costs about $660.6 billion. The debt is about $9.7 trillion, so I’ll let you figure out how long it would take to pay it off (make sure you factor in interest and the current deficit of about $407 billion). Not that long.
The second way (the “conservative” way) is to eliminate Social Security and Medicare and begin privatizing it. I won’t argue the moral issues here, just the fiscal ones. If we eliminate Medicare, our deficit is gone. Eliminating Social Security (including the Administration) would give us $652.4 to work with. It would actually pay off faster than the war costs.
The third way (the “Ron Paul” way) is to kill both. Obviously, it would go twice as fast as either of the other options. So if balancing the budget is your most important prerogative, this is the quickest way.
Andrew Min /ˈændruː/ /mi:n/ (n): a non-denominational, Bible-believing, evangelical Christian. (n): a Kubuntu Linux lover (n): a hard core geek (n): a journalist for several online publications
Email this author | All posts by Andrew Min | Subscribe to this author's RSS Feed
By Andrew Min • Sep 11th, 2008
It’s the fashionable thing for politicians to complain about high taxes and unbalanced budgets. Are we paying too much tax?
How much are you being taxed?
The national average income as of 2007 was, according to a census.gov PDF, $50,233 (see page 14). A dinkytown.net tool puts this at approximately $5762 in federal income tax for a single, male, head of the household. Note that this is just your income tax. No sales taxes or any other type of tax is included here. Additionally, this does not include state, county, or municipal tax, so you most likely pay much more (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington state, and Wyoming are the only states that don’t have a state income tax, so chances are that you do pay something).
While we’re at it, let’s also talk about the “rich”. The highest tax bracket is for people who make $350,000 or more, so we’ll use $350,000 as our “rich” income. According to the dinkytown.net generator, that means the rich man pays $95,423 in tax. Again, this is minus sales taxes and any non-federal income tax for a single, male, head of the household.
Now, our tax goes to the president’s budget. Today, the budget is reckoned at about $3.1 trillion, which has a deficit of about $407 billion. I then went to the Wikipedia budget article and looked up the cost of each program. Then, I calculated what percentage each was of the federal budget. Then, I multiplied the decimal form of each percentage into the income (50233 and 350000) to get the resulting amounts of how much each cost. Since these are rounded estimates, the numbers don’t quite match up. They are rough numbers, not the exact numbers. I’m not good enough at Excel for that.
Speaking of Excel, I then compiled everything into a nice spreadsheet (link) and PDF (link), hosted by the wonderful folks at Scribd. So if you like spreadsheets, stop reading now and go take a look. If not, on to the results.
Social Security: Most expensive
Looking at the tax breakdown, it’s obvious that the most expensive part of the budget is Social Security (Iraqi War and War on Terror isn’t covered in the budget, but I’ll get to that in a bit). Social Security, our retirement pension plan, costs $644 billion, or 20.77% of our budget. The median income taxpayer pays approximately $10,569.02 a year (Social Security + Social Security Administration). Unfortunately, you don’t get anything until you’re about 65, according to Wikipedia. 65. In that time, the government has forced you to pay $10,569.02 a year. That means you pay the government $686,986.30 before you even get a penny back. And then, you only have about fifteen years (if you’re lucky) to enjoy that money. Sure, it supposedly keeps you out of poverty. But maybe you wouldn’t be in that position in the first place if you could just get your own money (and perhaps invest it in the stock market, government bonds, or even get some interest).
It’s even worse for the rich guy. He pays $73,640 a year for Social Security, meaning that he pays 4,786,600 before he even sees a cent. That’s almost five million dollars. And he doesn’t even get all of it back! In other words, the rich guy is working hard all of his life, then doesn’t even get all of the money he earned. It’s not like he stole it. He earned it.
Medicare: A killer
Medicare is almost as bad as Social Security. Weighing in at $408 billion (13.16% of the budget), Medicare takes the bronze medal for most expensive program on the books. It’s a great idea, but you don’t get the benefits until you’re 65, like Social Security. And like Social Security, Medicare costs a lot for the median taxpayer, who pays $6,610.66 a year, forcing him to pay $429,693.08 before he gets to see his benefits. Additionally, what if he invested in the stock market? What if he had put $400,000 in a startup called Google? I’ll tell you: he’d be sitting pretty on about $2,000,000.
Again, the rich man pays a lot as well. He pays $46,060 a year for a health plan he may not even need or be eligible for. He basically pays $2,993,900 before he’s even eligible. Sure, he’s helping to pay for the median taxpayer’s health care. But maybe if the median taxpayer had the money he spent on Medicare, he might not even need the help. Maybe. Not definitely. Maybe.
Education: $59.2 billion on failing schools?
We spend approximately $59.2 billion (1.91% of the budget) on federally funded education. It’s actually not a bad deal, really. It only costs the median taxpayer $959.45 a year to send his kid to a public school. However, it’s actually a little more skewed. If you have four kids born two years apart, you have your kids in a public school system for about twenty-four years. The Cato Institute says that 41% of all private schools cost $2,500 annually. Since each kid is in school for 18 years, that’s $180,000. But wait. You keep on paying education taxes even after your kids don’t go to school. Suddenly, the price is $76,756 (if you live 80 years) for all four kids. That’s still about a lot less. But wait. We haven’t taken into account state or municipal education taxes. Suddenly, private school might be more affordable. But only if the government (all of the governments) refunded all of your educational money. I’ll take a slightly more expensive but good private school over a failing cheaper public school. Why not at least give people the opportunity to choose?
War on Iraq and Terror
I can’t do an estimate on this, since it’s not actually part of the budget (it’s an appropriation). However, if you look at the federal budget in 1944, it’s obvious that all wars cost a huge percentage of the budget. Obviously, no one (in hindsight) believes that we shouldn’t have fought World War II because it cost too much. Therefore, cost cannot be the primary reason for not fighting a war. If you have issues with the war itself (maybe the direction it’s heading, or the fact that there are supposedly no objectives), that’s one thing. But don’t complain about the cost. It’s expensive. So was World War II. Cost can not be the sole reason of why we stop fighting the war on terror.
Debt costs a lot
If you haven’t noticed, one of the most expensive things on the budget ($260 billion, 8.39%) is the interest on the National Debt. As it grows, it gets much more expensive. As one of the fellas from Ocean’s 12 put it, “Boy, the interest just kills you”. Obviously, the National Debt needs to be paid off. There are several ways to do this.
The first way (the “liberal” way) is to stop the war in Iraq and on Terror. The Department of Defense and the Global War on Terror costs about $660.6 billion. The debt is about $9.7 trillion, so I’ll let you figure out how long it would take to pay it off (make sure you factor in interest and the current deficit of about $407 billion). Not that long.
The second way (the “conservative” way) is to eliminate Social Security and Medicare and begin privatizing it. I won’t argue the moral issues here, just the fiscal ones. If we eliminate Medicare, our deficit is gone. Eliminating Social Security (including the Administration) would give us $652.4 to work with. It would actually pay off faster than the war costs.
The third way (the “Ron Paul” way) is to kill both. Obviously, it would go twice as fast as either of the other options. So if balancing the budget is your most important prerogative, this is the quickest way.
Andrew Min /ˈændruː/ /mi:n/ (n): a non-denominational, Bible-believing, evangelical Christian. (n): a Kubuntu Linux lover (n): a hard core geek (n): a journalist for several online publications
Email this author | All posts by Andrew Min | Subscribe to this author's RSS Feed
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
June 26, 2008
"Because only Spartan women give birth to real men."
The people who fight for civilization, and those who seek its destruction.
By Christopher Cook
For those of you have yet to see 300, do yourselves a favor and see it. (Warning: Spoiler Alert)
This movie is not just about the past. It's about today. Right now.
It's about each one of you who stands in the breach against the enemy.
And it's about each one of you who stands against the enemy within, who would happily widen that breach.
Today's enemy is Islamofascism, but it is little different from the hordes following the tyrannical King Xerxes.
Today's enemy within is the left, both at home and across the globe. And they too are little different from the scheming legislator Theron and the vile Ephori, who were willing—even eager—to see all Sparta kneel before Xerxes, just to gain power.
How is the left today any different? Do they not see their own nation, their own people, their own military as the enemy? Do they not seek to withdraw us from the field, to give the enemy the day?
And just as Sparta was the lynchpin that defended all Greece—that great cradle of democracy—is not the United States today the last bastion of freedom defending Western civilization?
But what care the left for Western civilization? They HATE Western civilization. They hate the men and women who defend it. They hate themselves.
But truly, this analogue is only the beginning — for what happened at Thermopylae may fairly be said to be the reason we are all breathing the fresh air of freedom today:
Xerxes is on the march. Land after land, king after king is falling under the Persian yoke. And now, Xerxes has set his eyes on Greece.
The Spartan King Leonides knows that the only way to save Greece is to fight. His Queen knows it too:
Queen Gorgo: "Freedom isn't free at all, that it comes with the highest of costs. The cost of blood."
Leonides must seek the approval of the Ephori, but these venal magistrates have already been corrupted by Persian gold, as has Theron.
Ephor #1: Sparta wages no war at the time of the Carneia.
King Leonidas: Sparta will burn! Her men will die at arms and her women and children will be slaves or worse!
Ephor #2: Trust the gods, Leonidas.
King Leonidas: I'd prefer you trusted your reason.
Having been denied permission, but knowing they must fight, Leonides is wracked with conflict. He leaves his bed, deep in thought, but his Queen calls him back.
Queen Gorgo: There's only one woman's words that should affect the mood of my husband. Those are mine. ...
King Leonidas: Then what must a king do to save his world when the very laws he has sworn to protect force him to do nothing?
Queen Gorgo: It is not a question of what a Spartan citizen should do, nor a husband, nor a king. Instead, ask yourself, my dearest love, what should a free man do?
So Leonides finds a way to do what free men must do.
Statesman: My good king! My good king! The oracle has spoken.
Second Statesman: The Ephors have spoken. There must be no march!
Theron: It is the law, my lord. The Spartan army must not go to war.
King Leonidas: Nor shall it. I've issued no such orders. I'm here, just taking a stroll, stretching my legs. These, uh, 300 men are my personal bodyguard.
And so Leonides will defend Sparta, and by extension all Greece, by taking his brave 300 to try to hold off Xerxes at the Hot Gates (Thermopylae). He hopes that his actions will awaken the Spartan legislature and people, to mobilize the rest of the army, to act as one against the enemy.
And so they did, eventually, though every single one of the 300 died doing so.
Now stop a moment and think.
These Greek city-states are showing the first stirrings of real democratic governance. A much greater percentage of people in Greece enjoy true freedom than in any of the neighboring lands. And it is about to fall under the yoke of a dictatorship.
What happens if Leonides fails? Does the Grecian experiment in democracy fail too, as Greece is trampled under by Xerxes and his army of slaves?
If the Greek cradle of democracy had fallen, Rome would not have absorbed its ideals.
If Rome hadn't taken those ideals and spread them into the Western world, where would those ideals be today? How far along would the ideas of representative governance be?
Without the Roman example, what would Great Britain have become? Would she have produced the Magna Carta? Would she have produced us, or any of the other nations of the Anglosphere—the freest nations in human history?
A great king knows what he must do, but the enemy within seeks to prevent him. And so it is his wife's words that tip the scales. A single moment—words spoken in a bedchamber 2500 years ago—changes history. Leonides knew the stakes all too well:
Leonidas: A new age has begun, an age of freedom. And all will know that 300 Spartans gave their last breath to defend it.
And so we see the how our freedom is dependent on the acts of brave men......and brave women.
One of the greatest moments in the film comes early on, during the meeting with the Persian messenger:
Messenger: What makes this woman think she can speak among men?
Queen Gorgo: Because only Spartan women give birth to real men.
Just like the sacrifice of Leonides and the 300 reverberates to this very day, in the free air we breathe, so too does a comparison between two women of today:
Recently, MoveOn.org put out an ad called "Not Alex." It features a young mother, holding her son. It is, needless to say, an "anti-war" ad. Here is the text:
"Hi, John McCain; this is Alex. He's my first. So far, his talents include trying any new food and chasing after our dog — that, and making my heart pound every time I look at him. So, John McCain, when you said you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because, if you were, you can't have him."
This women says that John McCain—and by extension this great nation—cannot have her son.
But this cowardly woman—who most likely mated with a cowardly wisp of a man—doesn't realize something vital: John McCain won't take her son. Neither will the military. She doesn't decide for him, at age 18 months or 18 years.
When he grows, he will decide—as a free man—whether to wear the uniform of his country.
It will be up to him to choose, not her or her accomplices at MoveOn.org. Perhaps, when he grows, he will throw off the corrosive ideology of his mother and recognize what Queen Gorgo did: "Freedom isn't free at all, that it comes with the highest of costs."
Contrast that with another brave woman of today. She is Ania Egland, wife of Air Force Major Eric Egland. Having grown up under the oppressive heel of communism, she knows the value and the price of freedom.
And she has responded to MoveOn.org's craven ad with an ad of her own. Here is the text:
"Hello Senator McCain, these are my precious boys Noah and Daniel. Their daddy served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I grew up under communism. So, when you say we have to protect freedom in Iraq, I understand. And, someday, I would be proud if they volunteered to serve this great country. Senator, thank you for your leadership."
Now THAT'S a woman. A mother of free men.
It is hard for a mother, even a mother who recognizes the cost of freedom, to see her child or her husband go off to war.
You think Ania Egland wants to see her sons die in war?
You think that when Queen Gorgo says to Leonides, "come back with your shield, or on it," that she wants him dead?
If you're on the left—with your warped and twisted way of seeing everything—you probably do.
Gorgo desperately wants her man back, but she understands the necessity of his fight. And Leonides' last words reflect his desire to live and be with her again: My Queen! My wife. My love...
And yet still, he sacrifices himself for the rest of us, so that we can live in freedom.
His Queen understood that. So does Ania Egland.
So now, I say to you, defenders of freedom everywhere—Remember Dilios' words...
Dilios: And so my king died, and my brothers died, barely a year ago. Long I pondered my king's cryptic talk of victory. Time has proven him wise, for from free Greek to free Greek, the word was spread that bold Leonidas and his three hundred, so far from home, laid down their lives. Not just for Sparta, but for all Greece and the promise this country holds.
[takes his spear from a soldier]
Dilios: Now, here on this ragged patch of earth called Plataea, Xerxes's hordes face obliteration!
Spartan Army: HA-OOH!
Dilios: Just there the barbarians huddle, sheer terror gripping tight their hearts with icy fingers... knowing full well what merciless horrors they suffered at the swords and spears of three hundred. Yet they stare now across the plain at *ten thousand* Spartans commanding thirty thousand free Greeks! HA-OOH!
Spartan Army: HA-OOH! HA-OOH! HA-OOH!
Dilios: The enemy outnumber us a paltry three to one, good odds for any Greek. This day we rescue a world from mysticism and tyranny and usher in a future brighter than anything we can imagine.
[puts on his helmet]
Dilios: Give thanks, men, to Leonidas and the brave 300! TO VICTORY!
[the Greek army roars and charges]
The left would see us all destroyed for nothing more than their own vile power and purposes. It is up to us—all of us—to stop them.
If 300 can hold of a million, you can make a difference.
You are the tip of the spear. You are Leonides.
Feel like the left is too powerful? Keep fighting.
Does it seem like their arrows are blotting out the sun? Fight in the shade.
Does Obama loom like the god-king Xerxes? Never kneel.
And so I say to the left:
We are the tip of the spear. We will fight you. We will never yield.
This will not be over quickly. You will not enjoy this.
"Because only Spartan women give birth to real men."
The people who fight for civilization, and those who seek its destruction.
By Christopher Cook
For those of you have yet to see 300, do yourselves a favor and see it. (Warning: Spoiler Alert)
This movie is not just about the past. It's about today. Right now.
It's about each one of you who stands in the breach against the enemy.
And it's about each one of you who stands against the enemy within, who would happily widen that breach.
Today's enemy is Islamofascism, but it is little different from the hordes following the tyrannical King Xerxes.
Today's enemy within is the left, both at home and across the globe. And they too are little different from the scheming legislator Theron and the vile Ephori, who were willing—even eager—to see all Sparta kneel before Xerxes, just to gain power.
How is the left today any different? Do they not see their own nation, their own people, their own military as the enemy? Do they not seek to withdraw us from the field, to give the enemy the day?
And just as Sparta was the lynchpin that defended all Greece—that great cradle of democracy—is not the United States today the last bastion of freedom defending Western civilization?
But what care the left for Western civilization? They HATE Western civilization. They hate the men and women who defend it. They hate themselves.
But truly, this analogue is only the beginning — for what happened at Thermopylae may fairly be said to be the reason we are all breathing the fresh air of freedom today:
Xerxes is on the march. Land after land, king after king is falling under the Persian yoke. And now, Xerxes has set his eyes on Greece.
The Spartan King Leonides knows that the only way to save Greece is to fight. His Queen knows it too:
Queen Gorgo: "Freedom isn't free at all, that it comes with the highest of costs. The cost of blood."
Leonides must seek the approval of the Ephori, but these venal magistrates have already been corrupted by Persian gold, as has Theron.
Ephor #1: Sparta wages no war at the time of the Carneia.
King Leonidas: Sparta will burn! Her men will die at arms and her women and children will be slaves or worse!
Ephor #2: Trust the gods, Leonidas.
King Leonidas: I'd prefer you trusted your reason.
Having been denied permission, but knowing they must fight, Leonides is wracked with conflict. He leaves his bed, deep in thought, but his Queen calls him back.
Queen Gorgo: There's only one woman's words that should affect the mood of my husband. Those are mine. ...
King Leonidas: Then what must a king do to save his world when the very laws he has sworn to protect force him to do nothing?
Queen Gorgo: It is not a question of what a Spartan citizen should do, nor a husband, nor a king. Instead, ask yourself, my dearest love, what should a free man do?
So Leonides finds a way to do what free men must do.
Statesman: My good king! My good king! The oracle has spoken.
Second Statesman: The Ephors have spoken. There must be no march!
Theron: It is the law, my lord. The Spartan army must not go to war.
King Leonidas: Nor shall it. I've issued no such orders. I'm here, just taking a stroll, stretching my legs. These, uh, 300 men are my personal bodyguard.
And so Leonides will defend Sparta, and by extension all Greece, by taking his brave 300 to try to hold off Xerxes at the Hot Gates (Thermopylae). He hopes that his actions will awaken the Spartan legislature and people, to mobilize the rest of the army, to act as one against the enemy.
And so they did, eventually, though every single one of the 300 died doing so.
Now stop a moment and think.
These Greek city-states are showing the first stirrings of real democratic governance. A much greater percentage of people in Greece enjoy true freedom than in any of the neighboring lands. And it is about to fall under the yoke of a dictatorship.
What happens if Leonides fails? Does the Grecian experiment in democracy fail too, as Greece is trampled under by Xerxes and his army of slaves?
If the Greek cradle of democracy had fallen, Rome would not have absorbed its ideals.
If Rome hadn't taken those ideals and spread them into the Western world, where would those ideals be today? How far along would the ideas of representative governance be?
Without the Roman example, what would Great Britain have become? Would she have produced the Magna Carta? Would she have produced us, or any of the other nations of the Anglosphere—the freest nations in human history?
A great king knows what he must do, but the enemy within seeks to prevent him. And so it is his wife's words that tip the scales. A single moment—words spoken in a bedchamber 2500 years ago—changes history. Leonides knew the stakes all too well:
Leonidas: A new age has begun, an age of freedom. And all will know that 300 Spartans gave their last breath to defend it.
And so we see the how our freedom is dependent on the acts of brave men......and brave women.
One of the greatest moments in the film comes early on, during the meeting with the Persian messenger:
Messenger: What makes this woman think she can speak among men?
Queen Gorgo: Because only Spartan women give birth to real men.
Just like the sacrifice of Leonides and the 300 reverberates to this very day, in the free air we breathe, so too does a comparison between two women of today:
Recently, MoveOn.org put out an ad called "Not Alex." It features a young mother, holding her son. It is, needless to say, an "anti-war" ad. Here is the text:
"Hi, John McCain; this is Alex. He's my first. So far, his talents include trying any new food and chasing after our dog — that, and making my heart pound every time I look at him. So, John McCain, when you said you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because, if you were, you can't have him."
This women says that John McCain—and by extension this great nation—cannot have her son.
But this cowardly woman—who most likely mated with a cowardly wisp of a man—doesn't realize something vital: John McCain won't take her son. Neither will the military. She doesn't decide for him, at age 18 months or 18 years.
When he grows, he will decide—as a free man—whether to wear the uniform of his country.
It will be up to him to choose, not her or her accomplices at MoveOn.org. Perhaps, when he grows, he will throw off the corrosive ideology of his mother and recognize what Queen Gorgo did: "Freedom isn't free at all, that it comes with the highest of costs."
Contrast that with another brave woman of today. She is Ania Egland, wife of Air Force Major Eric Egland. Having grown up under the oppressive heel of communism, she knows the value and the price of freedom.
And she has responded to MoveOn.org's craven ad with an ad of her own. Here is the text:
"Hello Senator McCain, these are my precious boys Noah and Daniel. Their daddy served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I grew up under communism. So, when you say we have to protect freedom in Iraq, I understand. And, someday, I would be proud if they volunteered to serve this great country. Senator, thank you for your leadership."
Now THAT'S a woman. A mother of free men.
It is hard for a mother, even a mother who recognizes the cost of freedom, to see her child or her husband go off to war.
You think Ania Egland wants to see her sons die in war?
You think that when Queen Gorgo says to Leonides, "come back with your shield, or on it," that she wants him dead?
If you're on the left—with your warped and twisted way of seeing everything—you probably do.
Gorgo desperately wants her man back, but she understands the necessity of his fight. And Leonides' last words reflect his desire to live and be with her again: My Queen! My wife. My love...
And yet still, he sacrifices himself for the rest of us, so that we can live in freedom.
His Queen understood that. So does Ania Egland.
So now, I say to you, defenders of freedom everywhere—Remember Dilios' words...
Dilios: And so my king died, and my brothers died, barely a year ago. Long I pondered my king's cryptic talk of victory. Time has proven him wise, for from free Greek to free Greek, the word was spread that bold Leonidas and his three hundred, so far from home, laid down their lives. Not just for Sparta, but for all Greece and the promise this country holds.
[takes his spear from a soldier]
Dilios: Now, here on this ragged patch of earth called Plataea, Xerxes's hordes face obliteration!
Spartan Army: HA-OOH!
Dilios: Just there the barbarians huddle, sheer terror gripping tight their hearts with icy fingers... knowing full well what merciless horrors they suffered at the swords and spears of three hundred. Yet they stare now across the plain at *ten thousand* Spartans commanding thirty thousand free Greeks! HA-OOH!
Spartan Army: HA-OOH! HA-OOH! HA-OOH!
Dilios: The enemy outnumber us a paltry three to one, good odds for any Greek. This day we rescue a world from mysticism and tyranny and usher in a future brighter than anything we can imagine.
[puts on his helmet]
Dilios: Give thanks, men, to Leonidas and the brave 300! TO VICTORY!
[the Greek army roars and charges]
The left would see us all destroyed for nothing more than their own vile power and purposes. It is up to us—all of us—to stop them.
If 300 can hold of a million, you can make a difference.
You are the tip of the spear. You are Leonides.
Feel like the left is too powerful? Keep fighting.
Does it seem like their arrows are blotting out the sun? Fight in the shade.
Does Obama loom like the god-king Xerxes? Never kneel.
And so I say to the left:
We are the tip of the spear. We will fight you. We will never yield.
This will not be over quickly. You will not enjoy this.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
The Imitators: Part II
By Thomas Sowell
It must be a bitter disappointment to those in the media and in politics who have been dying to use the word "recession" that, for the second quarter in a row, there has been no downturn in the economy, though growth has been slow.
Alarmists have been reduced to quoting other alarmists on the supposedly impending recession but that is still not the real thing.
The definition of a "recession" is very clear and straightforward: Two consecutive quarters of negative growth. We have not yet had one consecutive quarter of negative growth.
The fault-finding brigades of critics of the American economy and society are among the reasons why there is so much talk about how we ought to do things that are being done in Europe.
We need to understand America first, before we start imitating Europe.
The American economy produces the largest output in the world-- more than Japan, Germany, and Great Britain combined.
more good stuff from Professor Williams:
Measured by purchasing power, output per capita in the United States is the highest of any large nation.
There are some very small places like Luxembourg or the Cayman Islands with higher purchasing power per capita but, as Professor Benjamin M. Friedman of Harvard put it, places like Luxembourg are "technically countries but are more like large suburbs." Luxembourg's total population is about the same as that of Long Beach, California. Wal-Mart has more employees than the total population of Luxembourg.
Some other small places like the Cayman Islands are tax havens that attract the wealth of people who are not really Cayman Islanders.
Among countries at all comparable to the United States in size or population, none has achieved as high an output per capita. New Jersey produces more than Egypt. California produces more than Canada or Mexico. Desperate efforts to depict all the prosperity and progress in the United States as being monopolized by "the rich" have led to all kinds of statistical mumbo jumbo, such as comparing the changing ratios between statistical categories over time and ignoring the fact that most of the people in those categories move from one category to another over the years.
Studies that follow given individuals over time show the exact opposite of what is being said in the mainstream media and in politics. That is, most of the working people in the bottom fifth of the income distribution rise into the top half, and the rate of increase of their incomes is greater than that of most of the people initially in the top fifth. Those individuals in the top one percent, as of a given time, actually have an absolute decline in income over time. As they drop out of the top one percent, they are replaced by others, so the statistical category can be doing great, while the flesh-and-blood people who pass in and out of that category are by no means gaining on those further down the income distribution.
None of this is rocket science. But most people in politics, in the media and in academia still insist on using statistics based on the fate of abstract categories over time-- households, families, income brackets-- even when other statistics, based on following specific individuals over time, are available.
Households and families vary in size from group to group and are generally declining in size over time, but an individual always means one person. Income per household or family can be stagnant, or even declining, while income per person is rising.
That has in fact been a general pattern in recent decades, which may be why the nay-sayers are forever citing household and family income statistics, while ignoring statistics on income per person.
Amid a general undermining of American economic performance, it is hardly surprising that so many people think we should imitate what the Europeans are doing-- whether in the economy, in foreign policy or in other areas.
We can always learn particular things from other countries, whether in Europe, in Asia or elsewhere. But imitating Europeans when they are not doing as well as Americans makes no sense.
By Thomas Sowell
It must be a bitter disappointment to those in the media and in politics who have been dying to use the word "recession" that, for the second quarter in a row, there has been no downturn in the economy, though growth has been slow.
Alarmists have been reduced to quoting other alarmists on the supposedly impending recession but that is still not the real thing.
The definition of a "recession" is very clear and straightforward: Two consecutive quarters of negative growth. We have not yet had one consecutive quarter of negative growth.
The fault-finding brigades of critics of the American economy and society are among the reasons why there is so much talk about how we ought to do things that are being done in Europe.
We need to understand America first, before we start imitating Europe.
The American economy produces the largest output in the world-- more than Japan, Germany, and Great Britain combined.
more good stuff from Professor Williams:
Measured by purchasing power, output per capita in the United States is the highest of any large nation.
There are some very small places like Luxembourg or the Cayman Islands with higher purchasing power per capita but, as Professor Benjamin M. Friedman of Harvard put it, places like Luxembourg are "technically countries but are more like large suburbs." Luxembourg's total population is about the same as that of Long Beach, California. Wal-Mart has more employees than the total population of Luxembourg.
Some other small places like the Cayman Islands are tax havens that attract the wealth of people who are not really Cayman Islanders.
Among countries at all comparable to the United States in size or population, none has achieved as high an output per capita. New Jersey produces more than Egypt. California produces more than Canada or Mexico. Desperate efforts to depict all the prosperity and progress in the United States as being monopolized by "the rich" have led to all kinds of statistical mumbo jumbo, such as comparing the changing ratios between statistical categories over time and ignoring the fact that most of the people in those categories move from one category to another over the years.
Studies that follow given individuals over time show the exact opposite of what is being said in the mainstream media and in politics. That is, most of the working people in the bottom fifth of the income distribution rise into the top half, and the rate of increase of their incomes is greater than that of most of the people initially in the top fifth. Those individuals in the top one percent, as of a given time, actually have an absolute decline in income over time. As they drop out of the top one percent, they are replaced by others, so the statistical category can be doing great, while the flesh-and-blood people who pass in and out of that category are by no means gaining on those further down the income distribution.
None of this is rocket science. But most people in politics, in the media and in academia still insist on using statistics based on the fate of abstract categories over time-- households, families, income brackets-- even when other statistics, based on following specific individuals over time, are available.
Households and families vary in size from group to group and are generally declining in size over time, but an individual always means one person. Income per household or family can be stagnant, or even declining, while income per person is rising.
That has in fact been a general pattern in recent decades, which may be why the nay-sayers are forever citing household and family income statistics, while ignoring statistics on income per person.
Amid a general undermining of American economic performance, it is hardly surprising that so many people think we should imitate what the Europeans are doing-- whether in the economy, in foreign policy or in other areas.
We can always learn particular things from other countries, whether in Europe, in Asia or elsewhere. But imitating Europeans when they are not doing as well as Americans makes no sense.
Monday, June 16, 2008
If Bush Lied About WMD, Kerry And 77% Of The Senate Lied Also
By Mary Mostert (08/18/04)
In recent weeks I have received e-mail from readers asking me if a list of quotes making the rounds via e-mail that purport to be from anti-Bush politicians are actually œfor real. The quotes are from Democrats who have attacked the President for œlying about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction and invading Iraq when he was œnot a threat to the United States..
So, I researched the quotes. I found the origin of all but one or two of the quotes sent. However, in those cases, I easily found direct quotes, often made on the floor of Congress, that made the same point and made substitutions. Since Bush™s invasion of Iraq has become a core issue in the current presidential campaign, it is time to set the record straight. We live in the information age. What politicians have said is easily traceable via Internet search engines. Any news person willing to find out what the candidates actually have said, but now don™t seem to remember having said them, can find their quotes.
Below are the quotes, plus several interesting additions I found in the Congressional Record. In October 2002 the House passed Joint Resolution 114 to authorize the President to use military force in Iraq by more than a two-thirds majority - 266 to 133. The Senate passed the resolution 77-23.
Both Senators John Kerry and John Edwards voted for Resolution HJ 114 which puts Congress on record as approving President Bush's actions. It specifically states that the action was necessary primarily because "Iraq has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people" and because "Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens." The resolution also specifically mentions that Iraq was harboring "members of Al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq."
If, as the Democrats now claim, President Bush was lying about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction, 77% of the Senate, including those now running for president, were also lying. In fact, it was a Democrat, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut that introduced the amendment listing the "findings" of weapons of mass destruction as justification for the resolution.
Mary Mostert, Analyst, Banner of Liberty (www.bannerofliberty.com)
Quotes from Democrats about WMD
1. "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
Quoted on CNN
2. "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." “
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Quoted on CNN
3. Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
Transcript of remarks made at a Town Hall meeting in Columbus, Ohio “ from USIA
4. "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." -
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18,1998
Transcript of remarks made at a Town Hall Meeting in Columbus, Ohio “ From USIA
5. œWe urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998
See letter to Clinton by Levin, Daschle, Kerry and others
6. "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
Statement by Rep. Nancy Pelosi “ House of Representative website
7. "Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
Answer to a question at the Chicago Council of Foreign Affairs
8. "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." “
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
Letter to President George W. Bush signed by 9 Congressmen, including Democrats Harold Ford, Jr., Joseph Lieberman, and Benjamin Gilman.
9. " We should be hell bent on getting those weapons of mass destruction, hell bent on having a credible approach to them, but we should try to do it in a way which keeps the world together and that achieves our goal which is removing the... defanging Saddam.." -
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Dec. 9, 2002
Online with Jim Lehrer “ Public Broadcasting Service
10. "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Transcript of Gore™s speech, printed in USA Today
11. "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Transcript of Gore™s speech, printed in USA Today
12. "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
U.S. Senate - Ted Kennedy
13. "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
Congressional Record “ Robert Byrd
14. "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." -
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002
Congressional Record “ Sen. John F. Kerry
15. "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."-
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
Congressional Record “Sen. Jay Rockefeller
16. "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" “
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
Congressional Record “ Rep. Henry Waxman
17." In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad. In the 4 years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
œIt is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein wiill continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security.
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Congressional Record “ Sen. Hillary Clinton
18.The Joint Chiefs should provide Congress with casualty estimates for a war in Iraq as they have done in advance of every past conflict. These estimates should consider Saddam's possible use of chemical or biological weapons against our troops.
Unlike the gulf war, many experts believe Saddam would resort to chemical and biological weapons against our troops in a desperate -attempt to save his regime if he believes he and his regime are ultimately threatened.
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Oct. 8, 2002
Congressional Record - Sen. Ted Kennedy
19." There is one thing we agree upon, and that is that Saddam Hussein is an evil man. He is a tyrant. He has used chemical and biological weapons on his own people. He has disregarded United Nations resolutions calling for inspections of his capabilities and research and development programs. His forces regularly fire on American and British jet pilots enforcing the no-fly zones in the north and south of his country. And he has the potential to develop and deploy nuclear weapons... “
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
Congressional Record “ Sen. Bob Graham
20.But inspectors have had a hard time getting truthful information from the Iraqis they interview. Saddam Hussein terrorizes his people, including his weapons scientists, so effectively that they are afraid to be interviewed in private, let alone outside the country. They know that even the appearance of cooperation could be a death sentence for themselves or their families.
œTo overcome this obstacle, and to discover and dismantle Saddam Hussein™s weapons of mass destruction, UNMOVIC and the IAEA must interview relevant persons securely and with their families protected, even if they protest publicly against this treatment. Hans Blix may dislike running ``a defection agency,'' but that could be the only way to obtain truthful information about Saddam™s weapons of mass destruction -
Sen. Joseph Biden “
Congressional Record “ Sen. Joseph Biden
21. "With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002
Congressional Record “ Sen. John F. Kerry
22. œSaddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.
œIraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq™s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. “
Sen. John Edwards, October 10, 2002
Congressional Record “ Sen. John Edwards
By Mary Mostert (08/18/04)
In recent weeks I have received e-mail from readers asking me if a list of quotes making the rounds via e-mail that purport to be from anti-Bush politicians are actually œfor real. The quotes are from Democrats who have attacked the President for œlying about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction and invading Iraq when he was œnot a threat to the United States..
So, I researched the quotes. I found the origin of all but one or two of the quotes sent. However, in those cases, I easily found direct quotes, often made on the floor of Congress, that made the same point and made substitutions. Since Bush™s invasion of Iraq has become a core issue in the current presidential campaign, it is time to set the record straight. We live in the information age. What politicians have said is easily traceable via Internet search engines. Any news person willing to find out what the candidates actually have said, but now don™t seem to remember having said them, can find their quotes.
Below are the quotes, plus several interesting additions I found in the Congressional Record. In October 2002 the House passed Joint Resolution 114 to authorize the President to use military force in Iraq by more than a two-thirds majority - 266 to 133. The Senate passed the resolution 77-23.
Both Senators John Kerry and John Edwards voted for Resolution HJ 114 which puts Congress on record as approving President Bush's actions. It specifically states that the action was necessary primarily because "Iraq has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people" and because "Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens." The resolution also specifically mentions that Iraq was harboring "members of Al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq."
If, as the Democrats now claim, President Bush was lying about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction, 77% of the Senate, including those now running for president, were also lying. In fact, it was a Democrat, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut that introduced the amendment listing the "findings" of weapons of mass destruction as justification for the resolution.
Mary Mostert, Analyst, Banner of Liberty (www.bannerofliberty.com)
Quotes from Democrats about WMD
1. "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
Quoted on CNN
2. "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." “
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Quoted on CNN
3. Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
Transcript of remarks made at a Town Hall meeting in Columbus, Ohio “ from USIA
4. "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." -
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18,1998
Transcript of remarks made at a Town Hall Meeting in Columbus, Ohio “ From USIA
5. œWe urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998
See letter to Clinton by Levin, Daschle, Kerry and others
6. "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
Statement by Rep. Nancy Pelosi “ House of Representative website
7. "Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
Answer to a question at the Chicago Council of Foreign Affairs
8. "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." “
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
Letter to President George W. Bush signed by 9 Congressmen, including Democrats Harold Ford, Jr., Joseph Lieberman, and Benjamin Gilman.
9. " We should be hell bent on getting those weapons of mass destruction, hell bent on having a credible approach to them, but we should try to do it in a way which keeps the world together and that achieves our goal which is removing the... defanging Saddam.." -
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Dec. 9, 2002
Online with Jim Lehrer “ Public Broadcasting Service
10. "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Transcript of Gore™s speech, printed in USA Today
11. "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Transcript of Gore™s speech, printed in USA Today
12. "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
U.S. Senate - Ted Kennedy
13. "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
Congressional Record “ Robert Byrd
14. "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." -
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002
Congressional Record “ Sen. John F. Kerry
15. "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."-
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
Congressional Record “Sen. Jay Rockefeller
16. "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" “
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
Congressional Record “ Rep. Henry Waxman
17." In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad. In the 4 years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
œIt is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein wiill continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security.
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Congressional Record “ Sen. Hillary Clinton
18.The Joint Chiefs should provide Congress with casualty estimates for a war in Iraq as they have done in advance of every past conflict. These estimates should consider Saddam's possible use of chemical or biological weapons against our troops.
Unlike the gulf war, many experts believe Saddam would resort to chemical and biological weapons against our troops in a desperate -attempt to save his regime if he believes he and his regime are ultimately threatened.
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Oct. 8, 2002
Congressional Record - Sen. Ted Kennedy
19." There is one thing we agree upon, and that is that Saddam Hussein is an evil man. He is a tyrant. He has used chemical and biological weapons on his own people. He has disregarded United Nations resolutions calling for inspections of his capabilities and research and development programs. His forces regularly fire on American and British jet pilots enforcing the no-fly zones in the north and south of his country. And he has the potential to develop and deploy nuclear weapons... “
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
Congressional Record “ Sen. Bob Graham
20.But inspectors have had a hard time getting truthful information from the Iraqis they interview. Saddam Hussein terrorizes his people, including his weapons scientists, so effectively that they are afraid to be interviewed in private, let alone outside the country. They know that even the appearance of cooperation could be a death sentence for themselves or their families.
œTo overcome this obstacle, and to discover and dismantle Saddam Hussein™s weapons of mass destruction, UNMOVIC and the IAEA must interview relevant persons securely and with their families protected, even if they protest publicly against this treatment. Hans Blix may dislike running ``a defection agency,'' but that could be the only way to obtain truthful information about Saddam™s weapons of mass destruction -
Sen. Joseph Biden “
Congressional Record “ Sen. Joseph Biden
21. "With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002
Congressional Record “ Sen. John F. Kerry
22. œSaddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.
œIraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq™s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. “
Sen. John Edwards, October 10, 2002
Congressional Record “ Sen. John Edwards
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Your CO2 Footprint - Grab the Microscope - an Illustration
Carbon footprint. Carbon credits. Funny looking light bulbs. They say that human-produced CO2 in the atmosphere is causing accelerated global warming and/or climate change. Yea, right! If you buy into this ludicrous notion, it may be time to give the claim a reality check.
If the Earth's atmosphere were to be represented on a 100 yard (91.44 meters) football field (an American football field), the make-up would look like something this:
From the goal line, go down 78 yards to the 22 yard line on the other end, and you have nitrogen.
Go 21 yards further, to the 1 yard line, and you have oxygen (99 yards total so far).
From the 1 yard line to the 3 inch line, you have argon.
From the 3 inch line to the 1 inch line, you have other gasses.
The last 1" would be representative of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Let's switch our units from inch to millimeters. One inch equals 25.4mm
95 percent of that last inch (25.4mm) is CO2 that comes from water vapor - that is, evaporation from oceans, lakes, rain water, and so on.
That leaves 1.27mm left on the field.
Out of that remainder, 0.678mm is CO2 from natural sources - volcanoes and other stuff from the earth.
That leaves 0.591mm - just over one-half of one millimeter - which is CO2 produced by human (and other creature) activity.
Out of that 0.591mm, about half is from CO2 exhaled (and/or exhausted) from living creatures, including us dastardly, planet-destroying, humans.
Which leaves 0.295mm - about one-fourth of one millimeter - of CO2 emissions from automobiles, power plants, SUVs, and anyone driving a Toyota Prius. (I wonder what the overall percentage difference would be between a Ford F250 pick-up and a Toyota Prius? It probably couldn't even be measured as a percentage of the whole.)
And they claim we're destroying the planet. Yea, right. The more you look into the claim, the sillier it gets. And the more you consider the real motives ........ the more it makes you wonder.
Posted: 05/17/2008 @ 09:13 AM (PDT) (edited 05/17/2008 @ 09:22 AM (PDT))
Carbon footprint. Carbon credits. Funny looking light bulbs. They say that human-produced CO2 in the atmosphere is causing accelerated global warming and/or climate change. Yea, right! If you buy into this ludicrous notion, it may be time to give the claim a reality check.
If the Earth's atmosphere were to be represented on a 100 yard (91.44 meters) football field (an American football field), the make-up would look like something this:
From the goal line, go down 78 yards to the 22 yard line on the other end, and you have nitrogen.
Go 21 yards further, to the 1 yard line, and you have oxygen (99 yards total so far).
From the 1 yard line to the 3 inch line, you have argon.
From the 3 inch line to the 1 inch line, you have other gasses.
The last 1" would be representative of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Let's switch our units from inch to millimeters. One inch equals 25.4mm
95 percent of that last inch (25.4mm) is CO2 that comes from water vapor - that is, evaporation from oceans, lakes, rain water, and so on.
That leaves 1.27mm left on the field.
Out of that remainder, 0.678mm is CO2 from natural sources - volcanoes and other stuff from the earth.
That leaves 0.591mm - just over one-half of one millimeter - which is CO2 produced by human (and other creature) activity.
Out of that 0.591mm, about half is from CO2 exhaled (and/or exhausted) from living creatures, including us dastardly, planet-destroying, humans.
Which leaves 0.295mm - about one-fourth of one millimeter - of CO2 emissions from automobiles, power plants, SUVs, and anyone driving a Toyota Prius. (I wonder what the overall percentage difference would be between a Ford F250 pick-up and a Toyota Prius? It probably couldn't even be measured as a percentage of the whole.)
And they claim we're destroying the planet. Yea, right. The more you look into the claim, the sillier it gets. And the more you consider the real motives ........ the more it makes you wonder.
Posted: 05/17/2008 @ 09:13 AM (PDT) (edited 05/17/2008 @ 09:22 AM (PDT))
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)