Living Wage.
This seems to be the new socialist bugaboo. I do call it socialist, even though its implementation may be more fascist in appearance. I have said this before: Fascism and Communism are two fingers on the same hand of Socialism, though one may be purer than the other. In the former, the government controls the people through the companies, while in the latter, the government forbids the companies and controls the people directly. There is very little difference; in Fascism, the government forbears the existence of the companies for the time being, while in a free market economy, the government is limited in the ways that it is allowed to control them.
Economics lesson aside, let's break into the actual thought. The usual suspects are now calling for a government-enforced "living wage", the ability of any job to support a spouse and family. They like to claim that this was quite possible and expected back "before all this deregulation", as if the 1950's may as well have been lived under the hammer and sickle or something. Frankly, I'm pretty sure they don't know what they're talking about. But let's take a moment and ask the question: Why are so many jobs no longer offering "a living wage"? There are a few reasons that we can note before stepping into this one. In the 1950's, a "living wage" supported a smaller home with fewer amenities, fewer electronic devices with monthly plans, fewer restaurant meals, and smaller wardrobes. If you were to study the time period and attempt to live only with the amount of stuff and amenities that they had, eating what they ate and owning the clothing that they owned, you might find that a minimum wage job would in fact provide your needs. But let's set that, also, aside for a moment and ask this question:
Are corporations not offering a "living wage" because they are already subsidizing it via government fiat?
A worker costs an employer a great deal. Government-required taxes and benefits alone may increase the cost of an employee a minimum of 25% and maximum (more common in larger businesses, which have additional mandates that small businesses do not) of 40% above the employee's base salary. Many of these 'benefits', like 'health insurance' (itself becoming increasingly expensive and useless), would have been paid by the worker back in the days of the Living Wage.
On the other side, we have corporate and personal income taxes. Why did I say "corporate and personal"? Many companies nowadays are taking advantage of the S-Corp filing status, and filing as if they are persons. That lowers the bewildering complexity of the process and may lower the tax rate. On the other hand, someone who makes $35K/year may be paying taxes on his company's $120K/year profits instead. When we talk about government income from employers, we need to include them. All in all, the top 1% of income earners pay nearly half of personal income taxes, the top 20% pay 85% (the bottom 60% pay 2%), and many, perhaps even most, of those are S-Corps rather than individuals like Elon Musk or Bill Gates. The average S-Corp tax rate is 31%, with a range of 19-35%. (Note: That information is pre-Trump and so is at least slightly out-of-date. But hopefully it gets some thoughts stirring.)
Including all Federal spending, over half goes to social welfare programs, and state spending further adds to the bundle. A cursory look 'round state budget pie charts shows that welfare spending seems to run about the 20-40% range in general. Where am I going with this?
The average low-paying job is indeed already paying a Living Wage.
How can this be? Well, in the 1950's, he would do it by giving you a paycheck with which you could purchase all that you need. Nowadays, he does it the same way the government does for nonworking families. He pays for your health insurance, pays for a fair bit of your tax burden (did you know he pays half your Social Security tax? Try to work for yourself and you'll quickly find that out!), and pays the government to give you food stamps, heating assistance, rent assistance, free school lunches for your children, possibly free medical care for your children as well (CHIP/SCHIP), and, as your salary, a small cash allowance with which to obtain that which he and the government through his taxes have not provided.
Indeed, we see that this provision is sufficient, as there are workers in California under an increased minimum wage who have asked for fewer hours in order to preserve the same Living Wage.
Now's the part where everyone starts accusing me of saying that the poor have it easy, that they are freeloaders, that I don't care if babies starve, yadda yadda. Let's see who can continue to keep an open mind and listen to what I have to say about that. This is not by any means an ideal situation, and the poor do struggle. The reason they struggle, however, is not due to lack of funding. It is because the method of that funding is almost the least efficient and least effective manner possible. I say "almost" only because full-on Communism exists in the world, and it is by far the least useful way to handle wealth.
Raising children has helped me to remember and think about what it was like to be a child. People look back to that time period fondly, thinking of it as being idyllic, because "the world was less complicated and more safe". Indeed, when an adult controls your life, you have less responsibility and you don't have to worry as much about the dangers that still surround you. You still have a chance of being hungry, of being homeless, but in that event the adult will tell you what to do. What people forget is the loss of freedom. Sure, there's a measure of it if you live in a suburban area and own a bicycle. Other than that, though... You still have to ask if you can go to a friend's house. You have to ask if you want to visit a museum. You have to accept the food they give you; your parents determine your diet. You are severely restricted in how you can earn income and how much money you will have. And, of course, your school takes up much more of your life than you would have ever remembered; your precious memories of freedom and fun were most likely snipped out of a plethora of weekends and holidays (the parts that don't involve mandatory visits and customs) and stitched together out of a pair of decades.
Well, the current method of providing a Living Wage is much like being a child. Someone else controls how often/much your house receives to heat, how much you spend on food, which doctors you see, and what your child eats for lunch every school day. This is great, if you live the exact lifestyle that these social programs were optimized for. The problem is that it does narrow you down into a specific form of lifestyle; a purely cash form of a Living Wage allows you to spend more on your housing and less on your cell phone, or more on your clothing and less on your groceries. It can be very, very frustrating to need money for one budget category and be blocked by the Government from simply doing what the middle class takes for granted and transferring it from another category.
What is the answer?
The obvious answer to me is to reduce and reform the welfare system, and with it the tax system. Every reduction in welfare spending must be paired with an equal reduction in employer taxes. I was hesitant to suggest this before, because there must be a time period, I thought, in which wages were still low and people would be hurting. However, the quick responses of businesses in handing out bonuses as they began to raise wages after Trump's tax cut surprised and emboldened me in saying this: As they spend less on the employees through the government, they will spend more on the employees through regular wages.
On top of that, market competition will come into play, this time with a strong emphasis on employee demands rather than employer offers. When you can get a job as a cashier at Walmart and have the government spend tens of thousands of dollars on welfare to make up your Living Wage, you will not have to insist that your employer pays you that wage or you will fight for one of the jobs that pays it. The employment market is indeed a market with customers and 'sellers', and companies that do not offer that wage will have difficult finding people qualified to do the work.
If we do this, I think we will find that the effect of "wages not rising with national wealth", an argument that Liberals tend to use to try to justify actions that depress wages further, will correct itself, and workers will receive their Living Wage as cash instead of an unholy mixture of cash, government-mandated employer spending, and government-mandated welfare spending.
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 13, 2018
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
The 47% Dichotomy
There has been much ado lately about Romney being recorded at a meeting talking about "the 47%". Of course, everything has been blown out of proportion. In fact, Romney is making a very simple and good point, and Obama has made the exact same point himself in other speeches and policy-making.
Mitt Romney pointed out that there are about 47% (Obama's current support according to polls) who prefer government regulation to freedom. Then he pointed out that the 47-49% who pay no Federal Income Tax are not likely to be swayed by promises of lowering the Federal Income Tax. (It's the shame of the Democrats that they can't understand the simple concept of a Venn diagram.)
Obama said, in a speech when he was Senator, that he hoped to build a Democrat majority out of the people who received government assistance. That's basically the same thing Romney is saying! Obama is capitalizing on the Change that has put more people on government assistance than ever before and the Hope that they will support him to keep the "Obama money" comin'. You can see this clearly in his "Life of Julia" ad, in which he tries to impress upon us our complete inability to succeed without lots of government aid programs.
A while back, Romney claimed that he was not going to focus his speeches on the poor, because they were already well-served by government programs that he didn't plan to mess with. Obama has claimed that he is giving up on the working class. (The *white* working class, specifically, which is not only a horrible racist thing to say, but also will end up meaning the entire working class... unless he plans to start refusing government aid based on the color of your skin.) I have to wonder why Obama has decided to give up on the most hurting group in the country at a time when a family making *above the median income* is eligible for food stamps. It could be that he realizes privately that those who were independent under Bush will not be happy about losing half their wealth and (on average) 12% of their income in order to fall underneath the expanding government umbrella and receive government funding for which they must follow the government rules for everything from diet to housing.
So the question then to all of us is this: Which side? Which path? Which country? The one where aid goes to those in need and the rest of us flourish on our own two feet? Or the "'Julia' couldn't build that" country where the politicians hope that you'll vote blindly for them as long as they keep giving you free stuff? Both Romney and Obama have clearly stated the dichotomy and chosen a side. And I'm afraid the third party vote will not be strong enough to choose a third way... if indeed there is a third way between liberty and subjugation.
Note: Have you heard the latest, by the way? It appears that Romney is a hypocrite because he overpaid his income taxes (by not declaring all charitable contributions), and a hypocrite because he is one of the "47%" due to having paid no income taxes. You just can't win with these guys, even when they have to subvert the basic rules of mathematics in order to hate you.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
So much for resolutions...
Of course I haven't posted in a while now. It seems that "real life" continues to intervene! For today, I have a piece that I wrote in response to a forum thread. The conversation shifted to various economic responses to various tax cuts and government spending.
The first gem was the reminder that the "Clinton Surplus" was created by a Republican Congress and finally passed after Clinton stonewalled it so hard that the entire government shut down for several weeks. In this post, I went into the reasons behind the recent economic problems and their results.
This is what happened in 2006:
Shortly after the Democrats swept Congress, there was a bursting of a gas bubble. Not a physical bubble, but an economic one. Refinery problems plus Middle East concerns plus an increased integration of ethanol worked together to bring gas prices up. Food prices followed quickly. Whenever gas prices go up, food prices go up, because grocery stores work on a shoestring budget. They make almost no profit. So when it costs more to transport food to the store, the items cost more.
Now in 1977, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed by a Democrat majority Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter. The CRA had good intentions... to end the practice of redlining, or refusing to sell homes in certain areas to minorities. However, it basically involved sending the government into real estate to enact something very much like Affirmative Action. It didn't impact us much, though, for nearly 20 years, because it didn't have much teeth.
That changed under President Clinton, who empowered Reno to set things into motion that would punish banks that didn't make enough loans to minorities who wanted to buy homes. The only problem was that the reason why fewer minorities were buying homes was because fewer minorities had the financial means and acumen to hold down a mortgage. The banks were ordered to make it work somehow, and the bank response was the Subprime Mortgage.
The Subprime Mortgage, like the Saltbox and the SUV, was something created by private industry trying to keep what they wanted/needed while skirting Federal regulations. In all three cases, you ended up with something that didn't have all of the advantages of what the government wanted to force or what the private groups originally used. (The SUV is a replacement for the Station Wagon that not only fails to meet sedan fuel economy, but it fails to approach station wagon fuel economy as well. The Saltbox has a partial upper story with a roof that drops to the first story on one side, resulting in a loss of useable space.)
These subprime loans were snapped up by people for whom they were and were not originally intended, creating a heavy demand for new and expensive housing. People who would have been steered towards a starter home were using subprimes to afford twice the house they would have purchased otherwise. We had a housing bubble. W Bush sounded the alarm multiple times, but Frank and Dodd staunchly refused to look into it. All of these subprime home owners were barely managing to make their finances work, and the slightest rise in any of their other bills would lead to disaster.
Then, of course, as mentioned above, the oil price went up. That started a comprehensive collapse that ended in failing banks, foreclosures/abandonments, and rampant unemployment in the construction industry. Unfortunately, instead of isolating this disaster and allowing it to burn itself out, Obama decided to ramp up federal spending, and now it's affecting private sectors that had nothing to do whatsoever with construction or mortgages.
And now the fix, being basically the "You still have to provide mortgages for minorities whether they can afford them or not, but you can't do it this way", is making it nigh impossible for smaller businesses to operate through lack of liquidity. The government we-can't-allow-banks-to-fail mindset has brought to a full stop the natural process of stronger banks buying weaker ones and fixing the problems naturally. Did you know that, at the beginning of the recession, if you had been saving up a little money during the good times, you could have any home renovation done well on the cheap? Before Obama intervened in hopes of getting people to refinance their mortgages, refinancing was easy and very useful. We did it ourselves. Now it's all but impossible unless you fit the narrow and confusing government standards.
Gas prices also started to fall as demand fell, but now the weak dollar plus inflation (both the result of government spending) kept prices up and are now primarily responsible for the current spike. Of course, every part of this, from an end to free checking (next month, I believe, part of Obamacare) to the 50-100% rise in basic food prices, to the tightening of loans and resulting unemployment, is impacting primarily the poor and the middle class.
In short, the particular Democrats who swept Congress in 2006 (aside from Dodd/Frank and other members of the Old Guard) really were no more responsible for the beginning of the recession than W Bush was for the tech bubble burst and 9/11. It's what they've done with it since that has landed us in the Pit of Despair.
The first gem was the reminder that the "Clinton Surplus" was created by a Republican Congress and finally passed after Clinton stonewalled it so hard that the entire government shut down for several weeks. In this post, I went into the reasons behind the recent economic problems and their results.
This is what happened in 2006:
Shortly after the Democrats swept Congress, there was a bursting of a gas bubble. Not a physical bubble, but an economic one. Refinery problems plus Middle East concerns plus an increased integration of ethanol worked together to bring gas prices up. Food prices followed quickly. Whenever gas prices go up, food prices go up, because grocery stores work on a shoestring budget. They make almost no profit. So when it costs more to transport food to the store, the items cost more.
Now in 1977, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed by a Democrat majority Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter. The CRA had good intentions... to end the practice of redlining, or refusing to sell homes in certain areas to minorities. However, it basically involved sending the government into real estate to enact something very much like Affirmative Action. It didn't impact us much, though, for nearly 20 years, because it didn't have much teeth.
That changed under President Clinton, who empowered Reno to set things into motion that would punish banks that didn't make enough loans to minorities who wanted to buy homes. The only problem was that the reason why fewer minorities were buying homes was because fewer minorities had the financial means and acumen to hold down a mortgage. The banks were ordered to make it work somehow, and the bank response was the Subprime Mortgage.
The Subprime Mortgage, like the Saltbox and the SUV, was something created by private industry trying to keep what they wanted/needed while skirting Federal regulations. In all three cases, you ended up with something that didn't have all of the advantages of what the government wanted to force or what the private groups originally used. (The SUV is a replacement for the Station Wagon that not only fails to meet sedan fuel economy, but it fails to approach station wagon fuel economy as well. The Saltbox has a partial upper story with a roof that drops to the first story on one side, resulting in a loss of useable space.)
These subprime loans were snapped up by people for whom they were and were not originally intended, creating a heavy demand for new and expensive housing. People who would have been steered towards a starter home were using subprimes to afford twice the house they would have purchased otherwise. We had a housing bubble. W Bush sounded the alarm multiple times, but Frank and Dodd staunchly refused to look into it. All of these subprime home owners were barely managing to make their finances work, and the slightest rise in any of their other bills would lead to disaster.
Then, of course, as mentioned above, the oil price went up. That started a comprehensive collapse that ended in failing banks, foreclosures/abandonments, and rampant unemployment in the construction industry. Unfortunately, instead of isolating this disaster and allowing it to burn itself out, Obama decided to ramp up federal spending, and now it's affecting private sectors that had nothing to do whatsoever with construction or mortgages.
And now the fix, being basically the "You still have to provide mortgages for minorities whether they can afford them or not, but you can't do it this way", is making it nigh impossible for smaller businesses to operate through lack of liquidity. The government we-can't-allow-banks-to-fail mindset has brought to a full stop the natural process of stronger banks buying weaker ones and fixing the problems naturally. Did you know that, at the beginning of the recession, if you had been saving up a little money during the good times, you could have any home renovation done well on the cheap? Before Obama intervened in hopes of getting people to refinance their mortgages, refinancing was easy and very useful. We did it ourselves. Now it's all but impossible unless you fit the narrow and confusing government standards.
Gas prices also started to fall as demand fell, but now the weak dollar plus inflation (both the result of government spending) kept prices up and are now primarily responsible for the current spike. Of course, every part of this, from an end to free checking (next month, I believe, part of Obamacare) to the 50-100% rise in basic food prices, to the tightening of loans and resulting unemployment, is impacting primarily the poor and the middle class.
In short, the particular Democrats who swept Congress in 2006 (aside from Dodd/Frank and other members of the Old Guard) really were no more responsible for the beginning of the recession than W Bush was for the tech bubble burst and 9/11. It's what they've done with it since that has landed us in the Pit of Despair.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Taxing Riches
What tipped the scales for me when I voted for John McCain in the 2008 election? Certainly his appointment of Sarah Palin, a mother of five who bought diapers at Walmart and wasn’t afraid to hunt for food, helped his case. I am a conservative mother, and I identify with her. However, the real decision was made during the debate hosted by Rick Warren in which McCain refused to set an arbitrary dollar amount as the dividing line between rich and poor.
“Some of the richest people I've ever known in my life are the most unhappy,” he said, following Obama’s description of ‘rich’ as making $250K/year. “I think that rich should be defined by a home, a good job, an education and the ability to hand to our children a more prosperous and safer world than the one that we inherited.” The important part, however, the part that I wish all conservatives would memorize, is his next sentence:
“I don't want to take any money from the rich — I want everybody to get rich.”
I have realized that this was one of the greatest reasons why I staunchly oppose the liberal mindset. The liberals have set up “the rich” in order to bear the burden of their great society, built by directing cash flow from the producers to the non-producers in defiance of all the laws of nature. In setting up “the rich” for this burden, they must first define “the rich”, and every attempt to do so has led to disaster.
In this Great Recession, I have been lucky. My husband has not been laid off. However, we were notified last week that all employees in the company were going to undergo a temporary salary reduction. For whatever reason, they cannot bear the costs during this quarter. Their clients, however, cannot bear the drop in productivity. What was first going to be recompense as paid vacation is now going to be delivered to us as a bonus at the beginning of the next quarter.
As soon as I heard this, I groaned. I also used to work full-time, and the very first thing I learned regarding my salary was to never take accumulated vacation time as a monetary bonus. As soon as I heard the word ‘bonus’, I immediately knew that nearly half of the temporarily-docked pay would be lost to us for the rest of the year. Why?
Somewhere along the line, someone decided that the rich get bonuses. Therefore, bonus tax withholding should be calculated differently. Bonuses are taxed at a flat percentage, regardless of your financial situation. Once Social Security and other taxes are added on, you invariably find yourself with only about half of the original amount. Of course, the rich can weather a blow like this. A lower-middle-class family has very little stretch in the monthly budget, and paying back only half of a salary reduction puts a very real strain on the finances.
State luxury taxes provide a similar problem. By defining certain activities and property as ‘rich’, luxury taxes become a self-fulfilling prophecy, lifting these activities and property out of the reach of the middle class who may be willing to sacrifice in other areas of their lives in order to enjoy just one of these ‘luxuries’. The idea is the same; the liberals have decided that use of a certain good or service defines you as ‘rich’, and they who claim to bring opportunity to the poor end up forbidding it.
Property tax is yet another method by which those who define ‘rich’ end up snaring the poor and middle class. I live in a rural area, in which you will hear the phrase “Land-rich, money-poor”. This is not by any means a new problem. Property tax was a very early method of funding the government. It too, however, defines someone as ‘rich’, this time by looking at the size of their house or land. The New England Saltbox is an architectural design created in order to reduce taxes in a time when your house value was calculated by how many floors were in your home. By extending the roofline to the top of the first floor on one side of the house (usually the back), builders created the look and usefulness of a two-story house that was taxed as one. Measures like this were necessary for some families. Wealth is not the only reason to own a large house. The families with many children, typically poorer than the average, are hit hardest by large house taxes. Farmers are hit hardest by property tax determined by acreage.
As time goes on, I realize more and more the folly of a tax system that targets the "rich", due to the problems that arise from defining the line between "rich" and "poor". I am beginning to believe that perhaps the only method of taxation that can encourage growth and wealth is a flat income or sales tax percentage across the board.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
The New House and Obamacare
The new House started yesterday, with a reluctant Pelosi handing the gavel to Boehner, who immediately demonstrated that he knew just what to do with it. (No, he didn't hit Pelosi in the head.)
New House rules include a reading of the U.S. Constitution on the House floor today. That's a one-time thing, but there are other rules that are very nice, including a mandatory 72-hour online posting of bills before they are voted upon. People, they're giving us the responsibility. Find the website where they are doing this (I'll give you a link when I find it myself) and read those bills! Write to your Congressmen! The 2010 midterm election should be a beginning for the TEA Party, not an end. Now is not the time to sit back and start ignoring politics, not now that we have people in there who will listen to us! Now is the time to speak!
They also have modified "pay-go" into "cut-go", meaning that new spending must be paid for by cuts elsewhere, but tax cuts do not need to be 'paid for'. Considering that Bush's tax cut resulted in more tax money received by the Federal Government, I believe that we are on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve and 'paying for' tax cuts through spending cuts is unnecessary.
Here's the rule I like best: All new bills must be accompanied by a statement in the Congressional Record pointing out the specific Constitutionally-granted Federal power being exercised in order to justify the law.
Boehner has quickly shown that he's got the balls that so many Republicans have lacked over the past four or more years. The new regulations, set up to make laws more difficult to pass, have been waived for the first order of business which has also been declared exempt of all amendments. This first order of business is a call to repeal Obamacare, plain and simple. Will they do it? Yes. Will they succeed? Not likely, but our new Republicans already have a multi-pronged plan by which to rend Obamacare into unusable pieces.
Speaking of which, I want to show this around. Five top Democrat senators sent Boehner a letter warning him that the Senate will definitely block any repeal of Obamacare, so he may as well not try, because it will be a waste of time. Boehner's office sent back a prompt reply:
Senators Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Murray and Stabenow:
By the way, YouCut has been moved from the Minority Whip website to the Majority Leader website. The choices have not changed since the previous YouCut week, but the blog strongly suggests that the next set will arrive shortly.
New House rules include a reading of the U.S. Constitution on the House floor today. That's a one-time thing, but there are other rules that are very nice, including a mandatory 72-hour online posting of bills before they are voted upon. People, they're giving us the responsibility. Find the website where they are doing this (I'll give you a link when I find it myself) and read those bills! Write to your Congressmen! The 2010 midterm election should be a beginning for the TEA Party, not an end. Now is not the time to sit back and start ignoring politics, not now that we have people in there who will listen to us! Now is the time to speak!
They also have modified "pay-go" into "cut-go", meaning that new spending must be paid for by cuts elsewhere, but tax cuts do not need to be 'paid for'. Considering that Bush's tax cut resulted in more tax money received by the Federal Government, I believe that we are on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve and 'paying for' tax cuts through spending cuts is unnecessary.
Here's the rule I like best: All new bills must be accompanied by a statement in the Congressional Record pointing out the specific Constitutionally-granted Federal power being exercised in order to justify the law.
Boehner has quickly shown that he's got the balls that so many Republicans have lacked over the past four or more years. The new regulations, set up to make laws more difficult to pass, have been waived for the first order of business which has also been declared exempt of all amendments. This first order of business is a call to repeal Obamacare, plain and simple. Will they do it? Yes. Will they succeed? Not likely, but our new Republicans already have a multi-pronged plan by which to rend Obamacare into unusable pieces.
Speaking of which, I want to show this around. Five top Democrat senators sent Boehner a letter warning him that the Senate will definitely block any repeal of Obamacare, so he may as well not try, because it will be a waste of time. Boehner's office sent back a prompt reply:
Senators Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Murray and Stabenow:
Thank you for reminding us – and the American people – of the backroom deal that you struck behind closed doors with ‘Big Pharma,’ resulting in bigger profits for the drug companies, and higher prescription drug costs for 33 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D, at a cost to the taxpayers of $42.6 billion.Thank you, Boehner, new Speaker of the House, for showing the rest of them how it's done.
The House is going to pass legislation to repeal that now. You’re welcome.
- Speaker-Designate John Boehner’s Press Office
By the way, YouCut has been moved from the Minority Whip website to the Majority Leader website. The choices have not changed since the previous YouCut week, but the blog strongly suggests that the next set will arrive shortly.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Clunkers for Cash: Subsidy for the Rich
I'd like to take a moment and complain heartily about the Clunkers for Cash program. In case you haven't heard, it allows you to get something like up to $4,500 from the government if your old car is sufficiently fuel-inefficient and it is replaced with a tidy little econobox... brand new, of course. And that is where my problem lies.
Just to clarify my wider stance, I disagree with the program itself on the simple basis that I do not believe the government should be using my taxpayer dollars to pay people for the cars that they drive. This is not a matter of national defense or the simple running of the government. It is not a matter of ensuring the uncoerced determination of value that runs a good free market economy. However, even were I to agree with the program and with the government's administering of it, I can still find a problem with what it does and for whom.
If you are going to buy a new car, you need one of two things: a bank account containing the money for a new car, or enough room in your budget for a monthly payment. My family has neither. I continue to wonder how we would be classified economically. My husband works a middle-class job, technically. Since I do not work full-time (I purposely took a job with lower earning power than I actually have, because it is family-friendly), our household income is less than half of what you might expect from a family with college-educated parents. Anyways, the relevancy to this topic is that we have neither sufficient savings to buy a new car nor the room in our monthly budget to make payments on a new car.
Therefore, Cars for Clunkers automatically does absolutely nothing for us.
Recently, my husband's car permanently died. It was a '90 Cutlass Ciera that we bought six years ago for $500, and though it technically still runs, its problems include brake line failure, a rusty gas tank beginning to leak, a transmission that downshifts as if it's going to drop out of the vehicle, and a myriad of mysterious oil leaks. It garnered, on average, 15-20mpg.
We took all of our savings and purchased an '01 Honda Civic. Despite having higher mileage than the car we are replacing, it looks as if it has at least five more years of life in it. My husband reports fuel economy in the neighborhood of 50mpg, but that is only an estimate, since he has not had to fill the gas tank yet.
My car is an '89 Chevy Cavalier station wagon. As of right now, it has no mechanical problems, just a few cosmetic 'quirks'. The body is finally rusting, and I hope it can hold together until we can afford its replacement. If it doesn't keep running for another three or four years at least, we may be stuck with one car, which is tougher than it sounds when you live at least 3 miles away from any non-residential building.
If the Honda Civic was a new vehicle, we would surely qualify for Cash for Clunkers. Unfortunately, we don't have the money to buy a new vehicle. Even the least expensive new vehicle, after the government rebate, would be at least twice what we paid for the Honda. If the program worked for used cars, we could have just about paid for the Honda with the rebate and still had our little nest egg to use when my car gives up its ghost.
But I've learned a long time ago that the government, when run by Liberals, doesn't care about people like us.
The kicker is this: Since we are not too poor to pay taxes, the government will be taking money that we could have used to save for our car fund and using it to pay people who earn more than we do so that they can buy their brand-new cars for less.
Liberals often wonder how anybody below the upper-middle-class could possibly disagree with their social programs. I'm here to explain that this is just one of many examples that formed my anti-socialist bent.
If the government trying to help troubled Americans save the economy results in lower-class Americans paying for upper-class Americans to drive brand new cars, what will the government trying to help troubled Americans afford health care do to us?
Just to clarify my wider stance, I disagree with the program itself on the simple basis that I do not believe the government should be using my taxpayer dollars to pay people for the cars that they drive. This is not a matter of national defense or the simple running of the government. It is not a matter of ensuring the uncoerced determination of value that runs a good free market economy. However, even were I to agree with the program and with the government's administering of it, I can still find a problem with what it does and for whom.
If you are going to buy a new car, you need one of two things: a bank account containing the money for a new car, or enough room in your budget for a monthly payment. My family has neither. I continue to wonder how we would be classified economically. My husband works a middle-class job, technically. Since I do not work full-time (I purposely took a job with lower earning power than I actually have, because it is family-friendly), our household income is less than half of what you might expect from a family with college-educated parents. Anyways, the relevancy to this topic is that we have neither sufficient savings to buy a new car nor the room in our monthly budget to make payments on a new car.
Therefore, Cars for Clunkers automatically does absolutely nothing for us.
Recently, my husband's car permanently died. It was a '90 Cutlass Ciera that we bought six years ago for $500, and though it technically still runs, its problems include brake line failure, a rusty gas tank beginning to leak, a transmission that downshifts as if it's going to drop out of the vehicle, and a myriad of mysterious oil leaks. It garnered, on average, 15-20mpg.
We took all of our savings and purchased an '01 Honda Civic. Despite having higher mileage than the car we are replacing, it looks as if it has at least five more years of life in it. My husband reports fuel economy in the neighborhood of 50mpg, but that is only an estimate, since he has not had to fill the gas tank yet.
My car is an '89 Chevy Cavalier station wagon. As of right now, it has no mechanical problems, just a few cosmetic 'quirks'. The body is finally rusting, and I hope it can hold together until we can afford its replacement. If it doesn't keep running for another three or four years at least, we may be stuck with one car, which is tougher than it sounds when you live at least 3 miles away from any non-residential building.
If the Honda Civic was a new vehicle, we would surely qualify for Cash for Clunkers. Unfortunately, we don't have the money to buy a new vehicle. Even the least expensive new vehicle, after the government rebate, would be at least twice what we paid for the Honda. If the program worked for used cars, we could have just about paid for the Honda with the rebate and still had our little nest egg to use when my car gives up its ghost.
But I've learned a long time ago that the government, when run by Liberals, doesn't care about people like us.
The kicker is this: Since we are not too poor to pay taxes, the government will be taking money that we could have used to save for our car fund and using it to pay people who earn more than we do so that they can buy their brand-new cars for less.
Liberals often wonder how anybody below the upper-middle-class could possibly disagree with their social programs. I'm here to explain that this is just one of many examples that formed my anti-socialist bent.
If the government trying to help troubled Americans save the economy results in lower-class Americans paying for upper-class Americans to drive brand new cars, what will the government trying to help troubled Americans afford health care do to us?
Monday, May 18, 2009
Giving back to whom?
President Obama said something in his speech at Notre Dame that caught my attention. Actually, he said many things that caught my attention, but there is one that I want to focus on here. I knew that there was something wrong with his statement, but I did not realize what it was until I started reading today's transcript from the talk show host Rush Limbaugh. I'll be using quotes from both Obama and Limbaugh before taking the discussion in a slightly different direction. Obama was trying to speak as a Christian. Limbaugh was trying to speak as a Conservative. I will be considering this from the perspective of a Christian Conservative. Let's start with Obama.
Of course, Obama has a fix for this. He spoke of it during another speech, this one at Arizona State:
Part of this is not news... he's been mistaking personal charity for nationalism for a while now. Nowadays what's important isn't helping people, it's contributing to the nation. This is, of course, the point at which patriotism becomes fascism.
Now Rush Limbaugh responded to the phrase on his radio program today, and brought up a very interesting point:
Now for a different perspective.
Obama is not telling people to do something wrong. It isn't a terrible thing to work for a non-profit. It's true that the country could benefit from more people being engaged in charitable work. Also, Rush is not off-base. To give, you need to have something to give. Some people choose to acquire and give money. Some give their time. Those who give their money support those who give their time. When's the last time you heard a missionary speak at your church? What's the first thing a new missionary needs if he's ever going to make it to the field? Funding. However, this is getting off my intended subject, so let me actually begin to make my point.
The problem with Obama's bent is that he is motivating by guilt. He would have you believe that being well-off is intrinsically evil, and trying to work at a well-paying position is nothing but rank selfishness. He also would have you believe that the rich only become rich at the expense of the poor, and there is no other way to do it except to not be rich. I've spoken on this before.
But the Bible does not motivate charitable giving by guilt. The story of Ananias and Sapphira proves that, when they are told that while they still owned the land, it was their own, and when they sold it, the money was under their control. In the Gospels, we learn that God loves a cheerful giver. Obama is trying to produce the fearful giver.
God wants us to give because we have charitable feelings towards our fellow man, because we care about others, and out of gladness for what God has provided for us. Obama is telling us to give because we owe our fellow man for the simple fact that we succeeded and they did not. (Of course, the definition of success is rapidly shrinking. At first it was $250K/year, then $200K/year, then $120K/year, and now it seems that merely having a college degree puts you in the crosshairs, even if you are not yet employed.) Obama is not approaching this from a Christian viewpoint, no matter what he claims. He is approaching this from a very authoritarian socialist viewpoint.
In the authoritarian socialist government, the State craves control. It cannot bear to rely on people's goodwill, which is why it seeks to control us through fear and coercion. The tax increases Obama is planning is the coercion, and his speeches to these colleges is the fear. He, like most or all liberal Democrats, do not believe that enough people will give to others unless they are giving back... unless they are paying a debt that they know will be collected upon one way or the other. Remember the death threats made against the AIG executives.
I actually have a way to describe the State craving for control. With my first baby, I had to bottle-feed. I got used to it pretty quickly and had him on a schedule. At x time, he got x ounces of milk. Now, for my second, I am able to successfully breastfeed. Breastfeeding is not like bottle feeding. It is a co-operation between the mother and the infant, a matter of supply and demand. It does not run on a schedule. She lets me know when she is hungry, which could be anywhere from one to five hours since her last feeding. There is no gauge, no ounce markers, and I have no way of knowing how much she has had when she refuses the breast and decides that she is done. The only way I can measure my success is when she is weighed at the doctor's office. Then I find out that, despite my fears that she isn't getting half what I would have given her on a bottle, she is actually gaining so well that the doctor is surprised that she is only on breastmilk. Now if I gave into my fear and switched to bottle-feeding, she would be deprived of a wide variety of benefits so well known by now that they no longer need to be proven, and that for no good reason, because breastfeeding is working perfectly well.
The authoritarian socialist government has the same sort of fear. It wants to know how much money is going into charity, and where it is going. It wants to be sure that everyone is "doing their fair share". It is not content with trusting a people who are so generous that, though our government's charitable contributions put us near the bottom of the list of contributors, the private outpouring put us clearly at the top. Obama will not be content with "measuring success by weight gained", in this case merely checking to see if there are fewer poor and/or they are better off than before. No, he must have full control over the very process, even if it is not the best and healthiest way for society to operate.
The Christian Conservative does not scoff at charity, nor does he believe that people can only be poor because they do not deserve help. He sees helping the poor as his blessed duty, blessed because he is capable of doing so, a duty because God's love motivates him to help. However, he must watch out for the liberal rhetoric, and understand that charity should not be coerced; nor must it be motivated by fear and coercion.
Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice.
Of course, Obama has a fix for this. He spoke of it during another speech, this one at Arizona State:
With a degree from this university, you have everything you need to get started. Did you study business? Why not help our struggling non-profits find better, more effective ways to serve folks in need. Nursing? Understaffed clinics and hospitals across this country are desperate for your help. Education? Teach in a high-need school; give a chance to kids we can't afford to give up on - prepare them to compete for any job anywhere in the world. Engineering? Help us lead a green revolution, developing new sources of clean energy that will power our economy and preserve our planet....one thing I know about a body of work is that it's never finished. It's cumulative; it deepens and expands with each day that you give your best, and give back, and contribute to the life of this nation.
Part of this is not news... he's been mistaking personal charity for nationalism for a while now. Nowadays what's important isn't helping people, it's contributing to the nation. This is, of course, the point at which patriotism becomes fascism.
Now Rush Limbaugh responded to the phrase on his radio program today, and brought up a very interesting point:
And then he was telling them, "Give back, give back," all these college graduates. Give back what? They've got nothing to give back. They haven't acquired anything yet! The things they do have, have been given to them, everything -- by their overindulgent Baby Boomer mommies and daddies. Now when they can go out and earn money so they can repay what they've been given, Obama is trying to tell 'em, "Don't do that! Don't give back. Go back and 'give back' by working at a nonprofit or some such thing." It's convoluted.
I hate this whole concept of "giving back" anyway, that somehow it is the duty of the successful to "give back." Walter Williams, an occasional guest host on this program, has it exactly right on this whole notion of "giving back." The only people need to give anything back are the thieves among us: the thieves and the criminals, the people who have taken things which are not theirs. They're the ones that need to give back... But this notion of giving back is so convoluted because Obama is talking to a bunch of college graduates who don't have anything yet and telling them to give back.
This whole notion of giving something back is rooted in the belief whatever you have is somehow ill-gotten. That you've cheated, lied, or stolen to get it or that you're somehow not entitled to it, and so you need to give back.
Now for a different perspective.
Obama is not telling people to do something wrong. It isn't a terrible thing to work for a non-profit. It's true that the country could benefit from more people being engaged in charitable work. Also, Rush is not off-base. To give, you need to have something to give. Some people choose to acquire and give money. Some give their time. Those who give their money support those who give their time. When's the last time you heard a missionary speak at your church? What's the first thing a new missionary needs if he's ever going to make it to the field? Funding. However, this is getting off my intended subject, so let me actually begin to make my point.
The problem with Obama's bent is that he is motivating by guilt. He would have you believe that being well-off is intrinsically evil, and trying to work at a well-paying position is nothing but rank selfishness. He also would have you believe that the rich only become rich at the expense of the poor, and there is no other way to do it except to not be rich. I've spoken on this before.
But the Bible does not motivate charitable giving by guilt. The story of Ananias and Sapphira proves that, when they are told that while they still owned the land, it was their own, and when they sold it, the money was under their control. In the Gospels, we learn that God loves a cheerful giver. Obama is trying to produce the fearful giver.
God wants us to give because we have charitable feelings towards our fellow man, because we care about others, and out of gladness for what God has provided for us. Obama is telling us to give because we owe our fellow man for the simple fact that we succeeded and they did not. (Of course, the definition of success is rapidly shrinking. At first it was $250K/year, then $200K/year, then $120K/year, and now it seems that merely having a college degree puts you in the crosshairs, even if you are not yet employed.) Obama is not approaching this from a Christian viewpoint, no matter what he claims. He is approaching this from a very authoritarian socialist viewpoint.
In the authoritarian socialist government, the State craves control. It cannot bear to rely on people's goodwill, which is why it seeks to control us through fear and coercion. The tax increases Obama is planning is the coercion, and his speeches to these colleges is the fear. He, like most or all liberal Democrats, do not believe that enough people will give to others unless they are giving back... unless they are paying a debt that they know will be collected upon one way or the other. Remember the death threats made against the AIG executives.
I actually have a way to describe the State craving for control. With my first baby, I had to bottle-feed. I got used to it pretty quickly and had him on a schedule. At x time, he got x ounces of milk. Now, for my second, I am able to successfully breastfeed. Breastfeeding is not like bottle feeding. It is a co-operation between the mother and the infant, a matter of supply and demand. It does not run on a schedule. She lets me know when she is hungry, which could be anywhere from one to five hours since her last feeding. There is no gauge, no ounce markers, and I have no way of knowing how much she has had when she refuses the breast and decides that she is done. The only way I can measure my success is when she is weighed at the doctor's office. Then I find out that, despite my fears that she isn't getting half what I would have given her on a bottle, she is actually gaining so well that the doctor is surprised that she is only on breastmilk. Now if I gave into my fear and switched to bottle-feeding, she would be deprived of a wide variety of benefits so well known by now that they no longer need to be proven, and that for no good reason, because breastfeeding is working perfectly well.
The authoritarian socialist government has the same sort of fear. It wants to know how much money is going into charity, and where it is going. It wants to be sure that everyone is "doing their fair share". It is not content with trusting a people who are so generous that, though our government's charitable contributions put us near the bottom of the list of contributors, the private outpouring put us clearly at the top. Obama will not be content with "measuring success by weight gained", in this case merely checking to see if there are fewer poor and/or they are better off than before. No, he must have full control over the very process, even if it is not the best and healthiest way for society to operate.
The Christian Conservative does not scoff at charity, nor does he believe that people can only be poor because they do not deserve help. He sees helping the poor as his blessed duty, blessed because he is capable of doing so, a duty because God's love motivates him to help. However, he must watch out for the liberal rhetoric, and understand that charity should not be coerced; nor must it be motivated by fear and coercion.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Shattered Dreams
Have you ever hung out with friends or coworkers and started talking about what you would do if you were rich? Usually the conversation starts the same way. "Man, if I won the lottery, I would..."
Stop. Full stop.
If you win the lottery, your winnings are taxed. If you win big, you will be taxed big. Obama is planning on putting a heavy tax on earnings over $250K. Of course, that $250K will be taxed too, at varying rates from the first dollar to the last, so you won't even net $250K. But he's decided that's as much as any reasonable person should ever make in a year, even though you'd hoped that lottery winning meant that you'd never have to work again.
You'd be better off to not buy a lottery ticket at all. The worst that could happen is that you could win, and why are you bothering to spend the ticket money? If you get lucky, it will all be taken away.
Ever been a kid in the basement with a dinky cheap guitar hoping to become the next big hit? Got your friends together, the level-headed bassman, the over-excited lead singer, the wacky drummer? You might want to rethink your plans. You're a musician, not a business. If you make it big, you'll make lots of money. If you make lots of money, Obama will take it away from you. You'd be better off just getting some midrange job and not trying to 'make it big' at all.
Same thing goes if you're a budding inventor, composer, actor... want to make it big? Watch out. You might make it big enough to attract the government's attention. All the risk you took, sleeping in your car, failure after mind-numbing failure, all the years you spent honing your art, all the college debt you accrued trying to stick out from the rest, all gone. Obama and the Democrats have decided that anyone who puts in the work and risk to make it big is destined to hand their money over to people who took neither the work nor the risk simply to make it at all.
What about small businesses? My brother, a tax accountant, clued me into this one. The common designation for a small business is an "S corporation", due to its risks and advantages. Unfortunately, "S corporations" require you to report your business earnings as income, and you do so before you start paying your employees or rent. So if you make a business income of $300K and have expenses of $250K, guess what? You're going under.
From reading what proponents of socialism have to say, I can only guess that they believe that if you take away the incentive to excel, to 'make it big', to win, that people will continue to try. They seem to believe that people will still reach for the prize, even when there is no prize to reach. Capitalism and the free market believe that they are wrong. History is on the side of capitalism and the free market in this case.
What will happen to this country when nobody bothers to risk becoming The Next Big? When inventors no longer fiddle in their garages, and teenagers no longer form impromptu bands in their basements? When nobody buys lottery tickets for fear they might win? When doctors and surgeons do as some are already planning and quit working halfway through the year to avoid making 'too much money', reducing their numbers and making it very hard to get an appointment in October?
What will become of us then?
Stop. Full stop.
If you win the lottery, your winnings are taxed. If you win big, you will be taxed big. Obama is planning on putting a heavy tax on earnings over $250K. Of course, that $250K will be taxed too, at varying rates from the first dollar to the last, so you won't even net $250K. But he's decided that's as much as any reasonable person should ever make in a year, even though you'd hoped that lottery winning meant that you'd never have to work again.
You'd be better off to not buy a lottery ticket at all. The worst that could happen is that you could win, and why are you bothering to spend the ticket money? If you get lucky, it will all be taken away.
Ever been a kid in the basement with a dinky cheap guitar hoping to become the next big hit? Got your friends together, the level-headed bassman, the over-excited lead singer, the wacky drummer? You might want to rethink your plans. You're a musician, not a business. If you make it big, you'll make lots of money. If you make lots of money, Obama will take it away from you. You'd be better off just getting some midrange job and not trying to 'make it big' at all.
Same thing goes if you're a budding inventor, composer, actor... want to make it big? Watch out. You might make it big enough to attract the government's attention. All the risk you took, sleeping in your car, failure after mind-numbing failure, all the years you spent honing your art, all the college debt you accrued trying to stick out from the rest, all gone. Obama and the Democrats have decided that anyone who puts in the work and risk to make it big is destined to hand their money over to people who took neither the work nor the risk simply to make it at all.
What about small businesses? My brother, a tax accountant, clued me into this one. The common designation for a small business is an "S corporation", due to its risks and advantages. Unfortunately, "S corporations" require you to report your business earnings as income, and you do so before you start paying your employees or rent. So if you make a business income of $300K and have expenses of $250K, guess what? You're going under.
From reading what proponents of socialism have to say, I can only guess that they believe that if you take away the incentive to excel, to 'make it big', to win, that people will continue to try. They seem to believe that people will still reach for the prize, even when there is no prize to reach. Capitalism and the free market believe that they are wrong. History is on the side of capitalism and the free market in this case.
What will happen to this country when nobody bothers to risk becoming The Next Big? When inventors no longer fiddle in their garages, and teenagers no longer form impromptu bands in their basements? When nobody buys lottery tickets for fear they might win? When doctors and surgeons do as some are already planning and quit working halfway through the year to avoid making 'too much money', reducing their numbers and making it very hard to get an appointment in October?
What will become of us then?
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Hope and Change!
Alright, it's been a couple of months and we've got a fuller and richer idea of what Obama means by 'hope' and 'change'. Let's take a look at what's being said, what's been said, and what is being planned for the future.
President Obama, being eternally optimistic and having run on a platform that claimed sunshine and bluebirds every day should he be elected, has been speaking doom and gloom on the economy so often that even Bill Clinton has reprimanded him on the topic. The stock market has dropped further since his election than it did in all the time W. Bush was in office, and every time he makes a speech, it takes a fall of a couple hundred points. His message is simple; the only way for this country to survive is to give him every power, and to oppose any of his decisions is to want this country to fail. As well, to want lower taxes and greater freedom is now unpatriotic.
Our 'stimulus package' was put together under the watchful eye of Nancy Pelosi, who encourages government funding of contraception and abortion services under the unapologetic (her words!) claim that we can cut government spending on education and healthcare for children by reducing the number of children. I would never have thought of that solution. My natural preference is to reduce or eliminate government spending by cutting taxpayer programs for children of rich families, but the expansion to SCHIP either has been or will be passed soon.
The changes in the package made to medical spending were put into place by Tom Daschle, who has praised Europeans above Americans for being willing to accept a 'hopeless diagnosis' for a treatable condition on the grounds that it would cost the government too much money to help you.
Robert Reich, another lawmaker who worked on the package, caused a minor stir when he pronounced that guidelines should be created for the infrastructure upgrades to ensure that construction jobs created by the work do not go to skilled construction workers or white men. We must ensure that "women and minorities" who are not construction workers or skilled professionals are the ones who ensure that our bridges are safe to cross.
But don't despair! You'll be getting tax relief, if you don't make what the government deems to be too much money, which is about $75K/year. Yeah, I know Obama said his threshhold was $250K, but then Biden, I think it was, said $150K, and someone else said $120K, so are you really surprised? Anyways, if you are not rich, i.e. making $75K/year, you'll be getting about $25/month back in your paycheck starting in April. Don't you feel lucky? It's a tax credit, not a cut, but it's evenly distributed so that it looks like a cut. Oh yes, and you will get this money even if you don't pay any taxes at all, so it isn't really a 'tax' adjustment so much as a welfare check. Basically, the government is using the IRS to send welfare checks to people who are already working, whether they want it or not, and anyone making over $75K/year, in other words, the rich, will be paying for it.
This is the Democrat definition of hope, you see. The government will be handling the redistribution of wealth. If they decide that you make 'too much' money, you will be forced to pay for the lifestyles of all the people who don't. However, even if this level of financial burden bankrupts you, it will still not be enough. Therefore, all the 'little people' who don't make 'too much' money have to learn to be content with what the government provides. Instead of negotiating your own prices with an HMO in order to obtain the medical care that you need, you must expect that if you are too expensive for the government, you will not be allowed to obtain care. You must learn to accept that which has been rationed out to you instead of seeking your own fortune.
The government will care for all your needs, and if your needs are too many, the government will see to it that the population of the needy is reduced through abortion and lack of care for the ill and elderly until the finances work. In other words, prevent hunger by killing the hungry and prevent poverty by killing the poor. The survivors will revere you for saving them from want.
Ah, let me take a moment and address the jobs situation. The rise in unemployment is actually less of an all-over set of layoffs and more targeted to a couple of specific industries, primarily construction. But don't despair, you who are losing your construction jobs! The benevolent Obama has foreseen your needs! He and the Democrats in Congress are setting up a large spending spree on upgrading roads, bridges, and highways.
Unfortunately, Reich and others advocate restrictions on this spending to ensure that the money does not go to actual construction workers and/or 'skilled professionals', especially if they are white men. That's right, despite the fact that 'whites' make up about two-thirds of this nation's population, we must make sure that they are not getting any government funding, even if that means that we cannot hire the people who actually lost their jobs in this recent rise in unemployment. Don't despair, however. Plenty of money in the stimulus package will go towards hiring biologists to study field mice and climatologists to study 'global warming', even though there is no indication of a high unemployment level among biologists or climatologists.
How will Obama pay for all these non-white non-construction workers, biologists, and climatologists? Well, next up on the agenda is supposedly a 25% cut in defense spending. That's right, since the housing market collapse has caused many lost jobs among various construction workers and associated professionals, we must pay for non-professionals and people who are not construction workers by taking money away from the people who employ carpenters, painters, plumbers, electricians, and welders. With the government refusing to buy military equipment built by blue-collar workers and then refusing to hire those same blue-collar workers with the money they've taken away, I'm afraid we're in for a lot more government-subsidized people lining up for their rationed food and rationed healthcare.
Is this hope? Well, it certainly is change.
President Obama, being eternally optimistic and having run on a platform that claimed sunshine and bluebirds every day should he be elected, has been speaking doom and gloom on the economy so often that even Bill Clinton has reprimanded him on the topic. The stock market has dropped further since his election than it did in all the time W. Bush was in office, and every time he makes a speech, it takes a fall of a couple hundred points. His message is simple; the only way for this country to survive is to give him every power, and to oppose any of his decisions is to want this country to fail. As well, to want lower taxes and greater freedom is now unpatriotic.
Our 'stimulus package' was put together under the watchful eye of Nancy Pelosi, who encourages government funding of contraception and abortion services under the unapologetic (her words!) claim that we can cut government spending on education and healthcare for children by reducing the number of children. I would never have thought of that solution. My natural preference is to reduce or eliminate government spending by cutting taxpayer programs for children of rich families, but the expansion to SCHIP either has been or will be passed soon.
The changes in the package made to medical spending were put into place by Tom Daschle, who has praised Europeans above Americans for being willing to accept a 'hopeless diagnosis' for a treatable condition on the grounds that it would cost the government too much money to help you.
Robert Reich, another lawmaker who worked on the package, caused a minor stir when he pronounced that guidelines should be created for the infrastructure upgrades to ensure that construction jobs created by the work do not go to skilled construction workers or white men. We must ensure that "women and minorities" who are not construction workers or skilled professionals are the ones who ensure that our bridges are safe to cross.
But don't despair! You'll be getting tax relief, if you don't make what the government deems to be too much money, which is about $75K/year. Yeah, I know Obama said his threshhold was $250K, but then Biden, I think it was, said $150K, and someone else said $120K, so are you really surprised? Anyways, if you are not rich, i.e. making $75K/year, you'll be getting about $25/month back in your paycheck starting in April. Don't you feel lucky? It's a tax credit, not a cut, but it's evenly distributed so that it looks like a cut. Oh yes, and you will get this money even if you don't pay any taxes at all, so it isn't really a 'tax' adjustment so much as a welfare check. Basically, the government is using the IRS to send welfare checks to people who are already working, whether they want it or not, and anyone making over $75K/year, in other words, the rich, will be paying for it.
This is the Democrat definition of hope, you see. The government will be handling the redistribution of wealth. If they decide that you make 'too much' money, you will be forced to pay for the lifestyles of all the people who don't. However, even if this level of financial burden bankrupts you, it will still not be enough. Therefore, all the 'little people' who don't make 'too much' money have to learn to be content with what the government provides. Instead of negotiating your own prices with an HMO in order to obtain the medical care that you need, you must expect that if you are too expensive for the government, you will not be allowed to obtain care. You must learn to accept that which has been rationed out to you instead of seeking your own fortune.
The government will care for all your needs, and if your needs are too many, the government will see to it that the population of the needy is reduced through abortion and lack of care for the ill and elderly until the finances work. In other words, prevent hunger by killing the hungry and prevent poverty by killing the poor. The survivors will revere you for saving them from want.
Ah, let me take a moment and address the jobs situation. The rise in unemployment is actually less of an all-over set of layoffs and more targeted to a couple of specific industries, primarily construction. But don't despair, you who are losing your construction jobs! The benevolent Obama has foreseen your needs! He and the Democrats in Congress are setting up a large spending spree on upgrading roads, bridges, and highways.
Unfortunately, Reich and others advocate restrictions on this spending to ensure that the money does not go to actual construction workers and/or 'skilled professionals', especially if they are white men. That's right, despite the fact that 'whites' make up about two-thirds of this nation's population, we must make sure that they are not getting any government funding, even if that means that we cannot hire the people who actually lost their jobs in this recent rise in unemployment. Don't despair, however. Plenty of money in the stimulus package will go towards hiring biologists to study field mice and climatologists to study 'global warming', even though there is no indication of a high unemployment level among biologists or climatologists.
How will Obama pay for all these non-white non-construction workers, biologists, and climatologists? Well, next up on the agenda is supposedly a 25% cut in defense spending. That's right, since the housing market collapse has caused many lost jobs among various construction workers and associated professionals, we must pay for non-professionals and people who are not construction workers by taking money away from the people who employ carpenters, painters, plumbers, electricians, and welders. With the government refusing to buy military equipment built by blue-collar workers and then refusing to hire those same blue-collar workers with the money they've taken away, I'm afraid we're in for a lot more government-subsidized people lining up for their rationed food and rationed healthcare.
Is this hope? Well, it certainly is change.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Fixing the economy is too expensive, but socialism never has too great a price?
Charles Schumer is an idiot.
You won't often hear me calling people idiots. I tend to not like doing that. I don't call people idiots just for disagreeing with me. You have to have come out with "a real doozy" for that word to apply.
The Democrats killed (by vote) the Republican alternative to Obama's economic plan. They claimed that the package of mostly tax cuts, including cutting the bottom personal tax brackets, was just too expensive. This comes from the same people whose only hesitation on the collection of pork termed a "stimulus package" is that they 'fear' it may not spend enough money.
The real beauty, however, comes from Schumer's objection to the Republican plan to encourage banks to offer fixed-rate mortgage loans at 4-4.5% with 'jumbo loans' being exempt. This would help an awful lot of people, by the way, especially the minorities that the Democrats claim to favor. Think about it... the Democrats encourage minority home ownership by letting banks offer a $300,000 loan at variable interest rates, for a house that was worth less than $200K just a few years ago. The Republicans encourage minority home ownership by floating a suggestion to encourage banks to lend to them at a 4-4.5% fixed rate. But anyways, back to Schumer's objection.
The plan would provide a windfall to banks charging fees to refinance mortgages.
That's right, that's his objection. Those naughty banks might actually make some profit off the mortgage refinancing fee. We're talking roughly in the neighborhood of $3,000 for the privilege of refinancing a loan. What will that do to the poor consumer? Well, I recently refinanced at a lower interest rate and rolled the cost into the loan, and still saved over $300/month in bill payments. But that's besides the point, really.
Banks might make money by refinancing mortgages. That's the objection.
Remember TARP? It was meant to hand banks some capital in hopes of restoring liquidity. Basically, the government handed them money in hopes that they would start lending again. Guess what the banks didn't do with the money. That's right. This plan got through a Democrat-controlled Congress with ease.
So basically, it's A-Ok for the government to give the banks 'free' money in hopes that they'll start lending again, but it's unacceptable for the government to prod banks into earning some money by starting to lend again.
This isn't about the economy! This is about government control of the private sector! The Democrats aren't after an end to the recession. They want to turn this country to socialism. They're just using the recession as an excuse!
You won't often hear me calling people idiots. I tend to not like doing that. I don't call people idiots just for disagreeing with me. You have to have come out with "a real doozy" for that word to apply.
The Democrats killed (by vote) the Republican alternative to Obama's economic plan. They claimed that the package of mostly tax cuts, including cutting the bottom personal tax brackets, was just too expensive. This comes from the same people whose only hesitation on the collection of pork termed a "stimulus package" is that they 'fear' it may not spend enough money.
The real beauty, however, comes from Schumer's objection to the Republican plan to encourage banks to offer fixed-rate mortgage loans at 4-4.5% with 'jumbo loans' being exempt. This would help an awful lot of people, by the way, especially the minorities that the Democrats claim to favor. Think about it... the Democrats encourage minority home ownership by letting banks offer a $300,000 loan at variable interest rates, for a house that was worth less than $200K just a few years ago. The Republicans encourage minority home ownership by floating a suggestion to encourage banks to lend to them at a 4-4.5% fixed rate. But anyways, back to Schumer's objection.
The plan would provide a windfall to banks charging fees to refinance mortgages.
That's right, that's his objection. Those naughty banks might actually make some profit off the mortgage refinancing fee. We're talking roughly in the neighborhood of $3,000 for the privilege of refinancing a loan. What will that do to the poor consumer? Well, I recently refinanced at a lower interest rate and rolled the cost into the loan, and still saved over $300/month in bill payments. But that's besides the point, really.
Banks might make money by refinancing mortgages. That's the objection.
Remember TARP? It was meant to hand banks some capital in hopes of restoring liquidity. Basically, the government handed them money in hopes that they would start lending again. Guess what the banks didn't do with the money. That's right. This plan got through a Democrat-controlled Congress with ease.
So basically, it's A-Ok for the government to give the banks 'free' money in hopes that they'll start lending again, but it's unacceptable for the government to prod banks into earning some money by starting to lend again.
This isn't about the economy! This is about government control of the private sector! The Democrats aren't after an end to the recession. They want to turn this country to socialism. They're just using the recession as an excuse!
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Who will save you more money?
Alright, folks, here's the deal. Obama wants to give working singles $500, whether they pay that much in taxes or not. He wants to give working couples $1,000, whether they pay that much in taxes or not.
The Republicans want to cut the 10% tax bracket (first $8,350 for singles, first $16,700 for couples) to 5% and the 15% tax bracket (to $33,950 for singles or $67,900 for couples) to 10%.
What does this mean for your family?
Well, let's take a family of four making $50K/year. In the state of Connecticut, that's low enough to qualify for several government programs, including fuel assistance and state-funded healthcare. Doing the calculations for taxes in the first and second bracket, I come up with a savings of $2500 under the Republican plan and.. $1000 under the Obama plan.
So let's try someone else. A single person working full-time at federal minimum wage. That's roughly $13,624/year. Apply the tax brackets and he saves about $681 under the Republican plan. Under Obama's plan, he gets handed a check for $500.
Now I know taxes are a wee bit more complicated than that... things like healthcare expenditures, mortgage interest, and such can change the amount of money that you actually pay taxes on. Still, a little math can tell you the truth... you have to be making pretty darn near nothing to benefit from Obama's plan over the Republicans' plan!
So which plan do the actual workers of this country want?
Feel free to pass this on!
The Republicans want to cut the 10% tax bracket (first $8,350 for singles, first $16,700 for couples) to 5% and the 15% tax bracket (to $33,950 for singles or $67,900 for couples) to 10%.
What does this mean for your family?
Well, let's take a family of four making $50K/year. In the state of Connecticut, that's low enough to qualify for several government programs, including fuel assistance and state-funded healthcare. Doing the calculations for taxes in the first and second bracket, I come up with a savings of $2500 under the Republican plan and.. $1000 under the Obama plan.
So let's try someone else. A single person working full-time at federal minimum wage. That's roughly $13,624/year. Apply the tax brackets and he saves about $681 under the Republican plan. Under Obama's plan, he gets handed a check for $500.
Now I know taxes are a wee bit more complicated than that... things like healthcare expenditures, mortgage interest, and such can change the amount of money that you actually pay taxes on. Still, a little math can tell you the truth... you have to be making pretty darn near nothing to benefit from Obama's plan over the Republicans' plan!
So which plan do the actual workers of this country want?
Feel free to pass this on!
Friday, January 2, 2009
The most dangerous word in politics
There's a word I would like to strike from political language today and for the rest of this year. Unfortunately, with Obama's presidency, I suspect this word will only gain strength and importance far beyond it's merit. This single word is what's wrong with our political system, our economic system, and our societal morality. The word is entitlement.
We are, in fact, entitled to nothing. We are born naked, and survive though the love and instinct of fellow men and women. We take nothing when we die. Pure nature scoffs at entitlement. Not even predators have a right to long life, much less the prey. If we live from the prey and avoid or kill the predators, still nothing we can gather is utterly safe from disastrous storms. A volcanic eruption or an earthquake can level the proudest building in seconds, leaving us, yet again, with nothing. Natural law promises... nothing.
All that we have is what we are allowed to have, what we are given, by God. The main overreaching reason why God gives us things is because of His overwhelming love for us. We are not entitled to it. God owes us nothing. We do not deserve anything God gives us. We can't even keep up our end of the easiest bargain, the lightest burden. Despite this, God has chosen to bind Himself with promises toward our greater good.
The increasing shift to government programs replacing charitable interests have helped to foster a spirit of entitlement among the citizens of this country. Poorer members of society who used to accept what people were willing to give them with a grateful heart now demand what they feel they deserve for no reason at all beyond having been born.
Don't get too confused here in attempts to ream me out for insensitivity. I would prefer that every single person in this world, in the spirit of human dignity and humble appreciation for God's gifts to us, found what aid was necessary in keeping themselves clothed, fed, and sheltered. We are called to generosity and charity, remembering where we would be if not for God's grace. But neither they nor we are entitled to a single thing.
Hard work is honorable and required of Christians, but even it is no absolute guarantee of success, nor a reason to demand that the world responds favorably to you. You can do everything right, and there is still no guarantee. A simple fire set by an irresponsible idiot can destroy an entire lifetime of fortune, and the flames do not care how or when you acquired it. Again, I am not decrying hard work or responsibility. I am just reminding all of us that we are not entitled to anything.
For this reason, I object to government social programs of every sort. I believe charity to be the best replacement, a process by which people are bound together with gratitude and humility, rather than being split apart by entitlement and resentment; of the rich for having their hard-earned goods forcibly taken, and of the poor for the rich not having given them everything they feel they deserve simply for existing.
We are, in fact, entitled to nothing. We are born naked, and survive though the love and instinct of fellow men and women. We take nothing when we die. Pure nature scoffs at entitlement. Not even predators have a right to long life, much less the prey. If we live from the prey and avoid or kill the predators, still nothing we can gather is utterly safe from disastrous storms. A volcanic eruption or an earthquake can level the proudest building in seconds, leaving us, yet again, with nothing. Natural law promises... nothing.
All that we have is what we are allowed to have, what we are given, by God. The main overreaching reason why God gives us things is because of His overwhelming love for us. We are not entitled to it. God owes us nothing. We do not deserve anything God gives us. We can't even keep up our end of the easiest bargain, the lightest burden. Despite this, God has chosen to bind Himself with promises toward our greater good.
The increasing shift to government programs replacing charitable interests have helped to foster a spirit of entitlement among the citizens of this country. Poorer members of society who used to accept what people were willing to give them with a grateful heart now demand what they feel they deserve for no reason at all beyond having been born.
Don't get too confused here in attempts to ream me out for insensitivity. I would prefer that every single person in this world, in the spirit of human dignity and humble appreciation for God's gifts to us, found what aid was necessary in keeping themselves clothed, fed, and sheltered. We are called to generosity and charity, remembering where we would be if not for God's grace. But neither they nor we are entitled to a single thing.
Hard work is honorable and required of Christians, but even it is no absolute guarantee of success, nor a reason to demand that the world responds favorably to you. You can do everything right, and there is still no guarantee. A simple fire set by an irresponsible idiot can destroy an entire lifetime of fortune, and the flames do not care how or when you acquired it. Again, I am not decrying hard work or responsibility. I am just reminding all of us that we are not entitled to anything.
For this reason, I object to government social programs of every sort. I believe charity to be the best replacement, a process by which people are bound together with gratitude and humility, rather than being split apart by entitlement and resentment; of the rich for having their hard-earned goods forcibly taken, and of the poor for the rich not having given them everything they feel they deserve simply for existing.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Responsibility versus Entitlement
I submit for your consideration the following from a Moneynews article today:
I did not watch a lot of the Obama commercial that focused in on "poor families who need help" (from the Democrats, naturally), but I saw enough to remember the woman who said that her kids drank soda because she could not afford milk. I had two immediate thoughts. One was that if her kids drank water like water instead of drinking soda like water, no doubt she could afford a little milk for them. Maybe not a lot, but a little milk and a lot of water is healthier than a lot of soda. The other thing I noticed was her finely manicured nail job, which I asked around about and discovered that $40/month was a very low estimate for upkeep on that kind of beauty product. $40/month will buy a lot of milk... easily two gallons a week. That would give four children a little over a cup of milk each day right there.
My point? These are people who are used to expecting things. They likely got given what they wanted by their parents. They grew up watching commercials that told them what they needed to want. From allowances given for doing nothing to college credit cards gone sky-high, when have they ever learned that they can't have what they "must have"? What kind of standard of living do you have, anyways, if you can't have your hair the color you want it? And if they can't afford it, that's someone else's problem.
So why should they start paying now that they have a more reasonable loan? They've just learned that if they cry enough, banks will do everything possible to accomodate them, to ensure that they aren't (horrors) turned out of their five-bedroom lake-view domiciles. If they continue to cry and don't bother to pay, no doubt in the end they can get what they want for free, especially with a political party in place who doesn't seem to understand that the government does not create wealth... it just takes wealth away from other people.
In the midst of all this nonsense, one family acquired a modest raised ranch on a fixed-rate FHA and have held onto it with all they've got, forgoing cell phones for electricity, forgoing car loans for student loans, forgoing nail jobs and hair jobs for milk and potatoes. They have never missed a payment. It's that kind of attitude, responsibility rather than entitlement, that will bring down foreclosures of modified loans.
I can explain precisely why these modifications have not helped. Many of these mortgages were initially given to people who should not have qualified for the loans. In many cases, they were also used not to allow a working-class worker to move into a small suburban starter home, but to let people who have spent their entire lives expecting the government to provide for them stretch their budget to the limit to build or buy a "McMansion" on abandoned farmland. These are not people who are genuinely struggling to put proper clothing on their children and milk in the fridge. These are people who are "struggling" to keep up with their brand new car payments, their cell phone bills, and still have enough money left over to get their manicures.“One very troubling point is that, whether measured using 30-day or 60-day delinquencies, re-default rates increased each month and showed no signs of leveling off after six months and even eight months,” said Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan.
“This trend of increasing delinquencies underscores the need to understand why these modifications have not been more sustainable.”
I did not watch a lot of the Obama commercial that focused in on "poor families who need help" (from the Democrats, naturally), but I saw enough to remember the woman who said that her kids drank soda because she could not afford milk. I had two immediate thoughts. One was that if her kids drank water like water instead of drinking soda like water, no doubt she could afford a little milk for them. Maybe not a lot, but a little milk and a lot of water is healthier than a lot of soda. The other thing I noticed was her finely manicured nail job, which I asked around about and discovered that $40/month was a very low estimate for upkeep on that kind of beauty product. $40/month will buy a lot of milk... easily two gallons a week. That would give four children a little over a cup of milk each day right there.
My point? These are people who are used to expecting things. They likely got given what they wanted by their parents. They grew up watching commercials that told them what they needed to want. From allowances given for doing nothing to college credit cards gone sky-high, when have they ever learned that they can't have what they "must have"? What kind of standard of living do you have, anyways, if you can't have your hair the color you want it? And if they can't afford it, that's someone else's problem.
So why should they start paying now that they have a more reasonable loan? They've just learned that if they cry enough, banks will do everything possible to accomodate them, to ensure that they aren't (horrors) turned out of their five-bedroom lake-view domiciles. If they continue to cry and don't bother to pay, no doubt in the end they can get what they want for free, especially with a political party in place who doesn't seem to understand that the government does not create wealth... it just takes wealth away from other people.
In the midst of all this nonsense, one family acquired a modest raised ranch on a fixed-rate FHA and have held onto it with all they've got, forgoing cell phones for electricity, forgoing car loans for student loans, forgoing nail jobs and hair jobs for milk and potatoes. They have never missed a payment. It's that kind of attitude, responsibility rather than entitlement, that will bring down foreclosures of modified loans.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
On a similar subject...
I've been explaining issues like taxation, social mores, and charity from the perspective of a Christian Conservative, which is a bit different than just the straight logical conservative view. As a Christian Conservative, I am quite free to use theology as well as logic in explaining my stances. However, let me set that aside for a moment, and offer the reader a chance to learn something from a purely logical-political point of view.
These videos explain the Laffer Curve and it's effects on taxation.
The Laffer Curve, Part I: Understanding the Theory
The Laffer Curve, Part II: Reviewing the Evidence
The Laffer Curve, Part III: Dynamic Scoring
These videos explain the Laffer Curve and it's effects on taxation.
The Laffer Curve, Part I: Understanding the Theory
The Laffer Curve, Part II: Reviewing the Evidence
The Laffer Curve, Part III: Dynamic Scoring
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Parable of the Jacuzzi
One day the king who ruled the land decided to go visit some of his peasants. He was rather surprised to see the sorry state of their house and asked if there was anything he could do for them.
"Yes," the peasant father said. "You take such a high percentage of our goods as tax. If you took a lower percentage, then we could sell what we did not eat and fix the house."
This did not appeal to the king, however, and in his incredible generosity chose to give them a jacuzzi, so that their backs would not hurt and they could work more hours for him.
Years later, he revisited, to see that they had not prospered as he had hoped. The jacuzzi sat empty and dry in the back yard of the increasingly shabby house. "What is this?" he demanded. "Why aren't you using the jacuzzi I gave you so that your backs wouldn't hurt and you could work longer hours?"
"Sire, we can't afford the water to fill the jacuzzi, or the electricity to run it," the peasant father tried to explain. "In addition, it is taking up part of the yard that I could have used for gardening, and we are producing even less than before. Please take it back and give us more of our goods back instead. We know what we need, and if we only have the means, we can do it ourselves."
But the king left, angered that his subjects were so inconsiderate as to not profit from his generosity.
I am the full-time homemaker of a single-income family in the Working-Class income area. We lose 15% of our income altogether to income taxes and other mandatory government social programs. We cannot apply for Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, or even heat assistance. We have no guarantee of Social Security.
Obama wants to give us extended preschool which we won't use, extended after-school programs that our homeschooled kid is not allowed to join, daycare money that we don't need, and credits for buying a "clean" car that we can't afford. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, though I know he is not listening...
Stop giving us jacuzzi's, Obama! Let us keep more of our own goods! Then we can sell what we do not eat and fix the house!
"Yes," the peasant father said. "You take such a high percentage of our goods as tax. If you took a lower percentage, then we could sell what we did not eat and fix the house."
This did not appeal to the king, however, and in his incredible generosity chose to give them a jacuzzi, so that their backs would not hurt and they could work more hours for him.
Years later, he revisited, to see that they had not prospered as he had hoped. The jacuzzi sat empty and dry in the back yard of the increasingly shabby house. "What is this?" he demanded. "Why aren't you using the jacuzzi I gave you so that your backs wouldn't hurt and you could work longer hours?"
"Sire, we can't afford the water to fill the jacuzzi, or the electricity to run it," the peasant father tried to explain. "In addition, it is taking up part of the yard that I could have used for gardening, and we are producing even less than before. Please take it back and give us more of our goods back instead. We know what we need, and if we only have the means, we can do it ourselves."
But the king left, angered that his subjects were so inconsiderate as to not profit from his generosity.
I am the full-time homemaker of a single-income family in the Working-Class income area. We lose 15% of our income altogether to income taxes and other mandatory government social programs. We cannot apply for Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, or even heat assistance. We have no guarantee of Social Security.
Obama wants to give us extended preschool which we won't use, extended after-school programs that our homeschooled kid is not allowed to join, daycare money that we don't need, and credits for buying a "clean" car that we can't afford. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, though I know he is not listening...
Stop giving us jacuzzi's, Obama! Let us keep more of our own goods! Then we can sell what we do not eat and fix the house!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)