It is probably obvious that the people from whom the wealth is taken will become less willing to incur the risks that entrepreneurial investment involves – and so will produce less wealth, and thus less tax revenue.
President Barack Obama delivers the State of the Union address in Washington. He pledged to fight for a ‘fairer America’
What was it everybody used to say about the United States? Look at what’s happening over there and you will see our future. Whatever Americans are doing now, we will be catching up with them in another 10 years or so. In popular culture or political rhetoric, America led the fashion and we tagged along behind.
Well, so much for that. Barack Obama is now putting the United States squarely a decade behind Britain. Listening to the President’s State of the Union message last week was like a surreal visit to our own recent past: there were, almost word for word, all those interminable Gordon Brown Budgets that preached “fairness” while listing endless new ways in which central government would intervene in every form of economic activity.
Later, in a television interview, Mr Obama described his programme of using higher taxes on the wealthy to bankroll new government spending as “a recipe for a fair, sound approach to deficit reduction and rebuilding this country”. To which we who come from the future can only shout, “No?o-o, go back! Don’t come down this road!”
As we try desperately to extricate ourselves from the consequences of that philosophy, which sounds so eminently reasonable (“giving everybody a fair share”, the President called it), we could tell America a thing or two – if it would only listen. Human beings are so much more complicated than this childlike conception of fairness assumes. When government takes away an ever larger proportion of the wealth which entrepreneurial activity creates and attempts to distribute it “fairly” (that is to say, evenly) throughout society in the form of welfare programmes and public spending projects, the effects are much, much more complex and perverse than a simple financial equation would suggest.
This scenario was tolerated and generally ignored as long as the nation was experiencing overwhelming and seemingly endless prosperity. The one major accomplishment of Barack Obama has been to bring a sudden and abrupt end the people’s ability to tolerate this tacitly understood game between the two major Parties.
The Republican Party has a tenuous hold on the conservative movement in America. At present the only home for the 40 per cent of the electorate that identify themselves as conservative is the Republican Party, but it appears that those who are nominally identified as the “Republican Establishment” are doing all they can to alienate the vast majority of the current base of the Party.
There is no office on Connecticut Avenue in Washington with a sign reading “The Republican Establishment” or the “The Democratic Establishment”; rather it is an amalgam of like-minded groups with one common interest: control of the government purse-strings.
The Republican Establishment is made up of the following: 1) many current and nearly all retired Republican national office holders whose livelihood and narcissistic demands depends upon fealty to Party and access to government largesse; 2) the majority of the conservative media, including pundits, editors, writers and television news personalities based in Washington and New York whose proximity to power and access is vital to their continued standard of living; 3) numerous think-tanks and members thereof who are waiting to latch on to the next Republican administration for employment and ego-gratification; and 4) the reliable deep pocket political contributors and political consultants whose future is irrevocably tied to the political machinery of the Party.
The overriding interest of this cabal has been and continues to be: the accumulation of power through the control of the income, borrowing and spending by the Federal Government. Thus, with the exception of the presidency of Ronald Reagan and the Republican controlled House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999, the Republican members of the Ruling Class have been content since 1952 to merely slow down the big-government policies of the Democrats while publicly decrying their tax and spend policies.
How dumb does she think her Facebook followers are? Everyone paying attention understands that Gingrich himself is engaged in “the politics of personal destruction” as much as his opponents or the GOP establishment or the super PACs running attack ads in the Snow Bird State.
When Newt Gingrich proclaimed in early December that he would be the GOP nominee, I argued that his success would doom the Tea Party. How could the movement survive a standard-bearer who once favored bank bailouts, No Child Left Behind, an individual mandate in health care, a guest-worker program, the costly prescription-drug benefit, and the nomination of Harriet Miers? Or a politician who lobbied for Freddie Mac? Tea Partiers once pledged that if they had their way, the GOP would never again have as its champion a federal-government-enlarging, entitlement-expanding Bush Republican, nor a career politician who sells influence to D.C. insiders. Elevating such a man would split the coalition’s earnest reformers from its tribal partisans.
As ever, Sarah Palin failed to heed my advice. In South Carolina, she urged voters to cast a ballot for the former House Speaker. And on her Facebook page Friday, she attacked his critics in “the GOP establishment” for employing against him the always dreaded “tactics of the left.”
…This whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction… Newt is an imperfect vessel for Tea Party support, but in South Carolina the Tea Party chose to get behind him instead of the old guard’s choice. In response, the GOP establishment voices denounced South Carolinian voters with the same vitriol we usually see from the left when they spew hatred at everyday Americans “bitterly clinging” to their faith and their Second Amendment rights. The Tea Party was once again told to sit down and shut up and listen to the “wisdom” of their betters. We were reminded of the litany of Tea Party endorsed candidates in 2010 who didn’t win. Well, here’s a little newsflash to the establishment: without the Tea Party there would have been no historic 2010 victory at all…
We were not forced to buy homes by “them.” Some of us were greedy and wanted to keep flipping real estate and got caught when the music stopped. Some were stupid and leveraged their homes to pay down credit card debt and write off the interest — or take on even more consumer debt.
NO MAS, MR. PRESIDENT
The State of the Union could have been written by a computer program. All the now familiar Obama furniture was in the room: the mock outrage at “them,” the psychodramatic first-person boasting (as in, “I will oppose..,” “I will not work with…,” “I will decline…,” “I will not stand by …,” I will not cede…,” “I will not walk away…,” “I will not back down…,” “I will not go back…”); the now customary rear-view-mirror jab at his fading predecessor; the monotonous promising that something is so bad that we must have a new program for it (each year the same threat, the same solution, the same failure); and the silence about the Obama legacy of stimulus, debt, and ObamaCare.
But the people are tired and simply by now shut their ears. Here are five things in the current age that exhaust us.
Go Pay For It Yourself!
What is it about debt that Mr. Obama does not get? Please spare us any new programs or initiatives. We owe now $16 trillion. America is borrowing at the rate of $3 billion-plus a day. So please, Mr. President, no more Solyndras. We did not want or need Cash for Clunkers. There is no money for more expansions of food stamps. Nothing is left for student loan reprieves, high-speed rail, or anything else. To propose any new expenditure would first require some honest disclosure, like the following: “I wish to borrow $10 billion at 3% interest to lower student loan debt and I propose to pay for it by selling off 1000 new oil leases.”
The problem with these Obama initiatives is not just that we do not have the money and must borrow to pay for them, but that we feel most of them only make things worse, whether by subsidizing another mortgage for someone who is by market standards not likely to meet the loan payments and would be better off renting, or by paying some insider crony to make and sell solar panels at a loss. Again, chill on the new programs, and just start paying off what you already borrowed. Outside government, psychiatrists often treat with mind-altering medicines the unstable who compulsively charge things that they cannot pay for and do not need.
State Rep. Tom McMillin told WND at the time the case was “extremely alarming,” and there was growing support for an effort to penalize universities that don’t accommodate religious beliefs. “This is a state-taxpayer-supported university,” McMillin said. “She’s got a court case. Hopefully that will be resolved.”
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered a trial at the district level for a graduate level counseling student who was dismissed from her program for asking that a client with “gay” issues be referred to another counselor because as a Christian she could not affirm that lifestyle choice.
Officials at Eastern Michigan University took that action against Julea Ward, a student approaching the end of her degree program with a 3.91 grade point average, even though, as the appeals judges noted, the school’s own practices in fact permitted such referrals.
The result is that a jury needs to make a determination on whether officials at the school attacked Ward because of her Christian beliefs or not, the ruling said.
“What exactly did Ward do wrong in make the referral request? If one thing is clear after three years of classes, it is that Ward is acutely aware of her own values. The point of the referral request was to avoid imposing her values on gay and lesbian clients. And the referral request not only respected the diversity of practicum clients, but it also conveyed her willingness to counsel gay and lesbian clients about other issues – all but relationship issues – an attitude confirmed by her equivalent concern about counseling heterosexual clients about extra-marital sex and adultery in a values-affirming way,” said the opinion, written by Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton.
“Even in the heart of New England, voters overwhelmingly oppose rewarding illegal immigration and want overall levels of immigration reduced. It is a message that political leaders in Connecticut and around the nation would be well advised to heed,” concluded Dan Stein, president of FAIR.
A new statewide opinion poll reveals that likely Connecticut voters overwhelmingly believe illegal immigration is harmful to the state, and half would like to see overall levels of immigration to the United States reduced. By large margins, voters oppose policies, supported by Gov. Dannel Malloy and other state leaders, which would reward illegal aliens in Connecticut. The poll of 500 likely Connecticut voters was commissioned by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) conducted by Pulse Opinion Research during the week of January 3 and has a margin of error of +/- 4.5%.
Two-thirds of likely Connecticut voters, 66 percent, say that illegal immigration negatively affects the state. Substantial majorities of voters also want the state to punish employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens and want state and local police to notify federal immigration authorities when they have reasonable suspicion that an individual is an illegal alien. Voters are also firmly opposed to efforts to grant in-state tuition subsidies to illegal aliens attending Connecticut colleges and universities.
Additionally, Connecticut voters were asked about their views on legal immigration. A majority of respondents, 51 percent, believe that overall levels “are too high and should be reduced,” while only 9 percent believe immigration should be increased.
Among the key findings of the poll:
— 66% believe that illegal immigration negatively affects
— 67% oppose in-state tuition subsidies and/or admission of
illegal aliens to public universities.
— 68% support state involvement in immigration enforcement,
similar to policies enacted in Arizona and other states.
— 39% believe illegal immigrants take jobs from American workers,
while 35% believe they fill jobs Americans will not do.
— 51% support reducing overall immigration to the U.S., while
only 9% support increasing immigration.
Glenn Beck left the Fox News Channel last year after hosting a popular, hour-long, weekday program on the network. His show had been the target of intense controversy including boycotts by some.
Did Fox News try to censor Glenn Beck before the media giant left the cable network last year?
The answer is yes, according to Beck, who made the disclosure this week on his new television program on GBTV.com.
Beck was discussing comments made by longtime PBS news commentator Bill Moyers who was defending leftist billionaire George Soros.
Moyers had said Soros has “been the victim, of course, of Glenn Beck and the right-wing, the Fox News assassins.”
In response to Moyers’ comment, Beck explained that his own former network tried to get him to clam up about his constant reporting on what he felt was Soros’ fiendish agenda to harm the American way of life.
“Here’s the real reason why George Soros is worried about little old me and the assassins, because I know the truth about him,” said Beck.
“Everyone – including the assassins [at Fox News] – told me, ‘You wanna shut up about George Soros?’”
The Obama Administration has decided to continue offering cash grants through the SNAP Outreach Grant program and plans to pursue its stated strategic plan of increasing food stamp enrollment through 2015.
Over the last three years, the number of Americans on food stamps has skyrocketed by two-thirds and stands at a record-high 46 million citizens, or one out of every seven people in the United States. Despite the historic rise in food stamp use, however, the Obama Administration believes not enough people are receiving food stamps who should be and is offering $75,000 grants to groups who devise “effective strategies” to “increase program participation” among those who have yet to sign up.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s website singles out Hispanics and elderly Americans as groups who often fail to enroll in the food stamp program (officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP) and says that one of the contributing factors that must be overcome to get more people to sign up for SNAP benefits is individual “pride”:
There are many reasons why eligible people, including seniors and Hispanics, do not participate in the SNAP. These include unawareness of eligibility, confusion about program rules and requirements, a complex application process, and a lack of transportation and pride.
To reduce these “barriers” to food stamp enrollment, the Department of Agriculture offers non-profit groups the chance to receive $75,000 grants for projects designed to boost food stamp participation among those who are eligible but have yet to sign up. The Department of Agriculture believes that the SNAP program is “severely underutilized” and says that 33 percent more Americans who are eligible to receive food stamps have yet to apply, thus the need to offer federal grants to sign more citizens up.
“The magic is as wide as a smile and as narrow as a wink, loud as laughter and quiet as a tear, tall as a tale and deep as emotion. So strong, it can lift the spirit. So gentle, it can touch the heart. It is the magic that begins the happily ever after.” – Unknown