Ronald Reagan Move Over

The extension of the Bush tax rates (what the media is now calling Obama's tax cuts) is a victory for Conservatives that should not be squandered. The Obama tax cuts are neither Obama's--they are Bush's--nor are they tax cuts--they are an extension of the current rates that were set to expire on 12/31/10. But the claim of the Democrats that these extensions had to be made because raising taxes on Americans in this economy would be disastrous is a true victory for Conservatives. It is also sound fiscal policy and should be capitalized on.

An editorial in today's Wall Street Journal points out: "As Milton Friedman taught us with his "permanent income hypothesis," consumers base their consumption on their longer-term income expectations, not merely on current income." Temporary tax rates return money to its rightful owner, the earner, but without the certainty of knowing what future tax rates are increased consumption will be muted by the lack of clarity. The Republican majority in the House has a golden opportunity to revisit the tax question while they have the Democrats on their heels and push for further, permanent cuts in 2011.

After passage of the bill Senator Dick Durbin (D) claimed: "The president has a big victory here. It's big because it means there won't be a tax increase at the first of the year, which could have hurt our economy."

Suddenly, though not un-coincidentally (recall the landslide November elections), the Democrats have found lower tax religion. If, as the Senator says higher taxes "hurt" our economy, why has it taken two years for the Democrats to support this extension of the Bush tax rates in an economy they call the worst since the Great Depression? Additionally, why didn't they propose lower and permanent rates to further stimulate demand?

President Obama, too, is a an enthusiastic member of the lower tax club. Only a week ago he was complaining that the House Republicans were holding unemployment benefits hostage to the tax rate extensions, then upon signing the bill declared: "This is real money that's going to make a real difference in people's lives. That's how we're going to spark demand, spur hiring, and strengthen our economy in the new year" (Reuters)

Ronald Reagan move over and meet the new supply-sider in the White House. His claim that "lower taxes spark demand, spur hiring and strengthen our economy" should be rung from every mountain top from now until 2012.

You heard it here folks.

(photo courtesy of my personal collection taken at the 111th Army Navy game)

Much has been made in the press regarding Mr. Obama having to postpone his Christmas vacation because of a recalcitrant Congress wrangling over "his" tax bill. A little has been made about Congress having to stay in Washington; potentially working through Christmas because the Democrat leadership left all of the heavy lifting until after the November election when they could--how to say this politely?--uh, stick it to the electorate during their lame duck session. With the passage of the extension of the Bush tax rates by Congress and scrapping of the $1.1 TRILLION budget in the Senate last night, perhaps our ruling class friends will get to go home after all and the President will get to don his Oakley's and board shorts and body surf for the cameras in the Oahu surf. Sigh of relief.

Yet, not once in the breathless press reports regarding Mr. Obama's Christmas vacation have I ever heard commentary or sympathy or even appreciation for the members of our military who will be working right through Christmas. Away from their homes and families. In a far away and hostile land. Not once.

So, I would like to thank them, each and every one, and their families. I would like to thank them for their courage and their self-sacrifice and their dedication to the preservation of this great Republic. I think about our military often, I think about their quiet discipline and constancy, their devotion to liberty, and their self-effacing humility.

I think of none of those qualities, by the way, when I think of Congress. But I digress.

As impressed as I am by the members of our military, I am equally as impressed with the naivete of many of our citizens. Can anyone tell me what that mysterious Coexist bumper sticker means? Tell me please why someone would slap an End this Endless War sticker on their back window? Do these people think that our country, and particularly those that serve, like war? That it never occurred to the average person to "coexist" peacefully with our neighbors? Is their smug moral superiority so veneered onto their brains that they think the rest of us have lost our way? That we enjoy seeing our military men and women sacrifice and suffer and die simply for the sake of mindless aggression? Did they not study the history of the Revolutionary War that launched this nation? Can you imagine a Revolutionary patriot slapping a Coexist sticker to the rump of his horse? Or a Revolutionary farmer planting an End this Endless War sign in their front garden while their neighbor marched shoeless through the bitter snow of New England trying to defeat the most powerful army the world had ever known?

Justice Stephen Breyer in an interview on Fox News Sunday last week argued that the Founder's couldn't possibly have understood what the future would hold for this nation when they penned the Constitution and the Federalist Papers: "That being the case, and particularly since the Founding Fathers did not foresee how modern day would change individual behavior, government bodies can impose regulations on guns, Breyer concluded." (emphasis mine)

(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/12/breyer-founding-fathers-allowed-restrictions-guns/#ixzz18NrY5pkU)

It is exactly Justice Breyer's kind of arrogance that inspires our fellow citizens to explain to the rest of us the way the world works. It is what motivates City Council's to ban McDonald's toys, or the First Lady to dictate nutritional standards to our children; that arrogance emboldens the hapless Prius owner to paste a Coexist sticker on their bumper--to remind us all that peace is the answer. In case we didn't know.

So Justice Breyer in all his sophistication doesn't believe the Founder's exercised foresight? Allow me to quote from Federalist 34 where Hamilton is arguing for (among other things) a strong defense: "A cloud has been for some time hanging over the European world. If it should break forth into a storm, who can insure us that in its progress a part of its fury would not be spent upon us? ...Let us recollect that peace or war will not always be left to our option; that however moderate or unambitious we may be, we cannot count upon the moderation, or hope to extinguish the ambition of others. ...To judge from the history of mankind, we shall be compelled to conclude that the fiery and destructive passions of war reign in the human breast with much more powerful sway than the mild and beneficent sentiments of peace; and that to model our political systems upon speculations of lasting tranquillity, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.

Those prescient statements seem to me to anticipate wars and attacks, jealousies and aggression and most importantly, to clearly understand the true nature of man. So, until the rest of us are civilized enough to Coexist, let's offer support and prayer to the real hero's--the ones who will quietly serve far from home during Christmas and the New Year, Easter and children's birthday's and wedding anniversaries. With deep humility and sacrifice.

An inadequately heartfelt Thank You members of our Military. May God Bless you and your families this Christmas Season especially.

Oh yes, and: Go Navy! Beat Army!

A Change of Men

In Federalist 21, Alexander Hamilton writes: "The natural cure for an ill-administration, in a popular or representative constitution, is a change of men."

In November the country overwhelmingly demanded a change of men. A change of direction. A return to Conservative, Constitutional principles. The election was a repudiation of the reckless disregard of Nancy Pelosi's House, and Harry Reid's Senate for the Constitution so carefully and courageously crafted by our Founders. The Founder's understood as Hamilton wrote in Federalist 22 that "The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority. "

In other words, the Founders respected the will of the people.

How far we've sunk.

Since the decisive election in November, instead of heeding the voice of the people, the left-leaning, Democratic majority continues the path they blazed with the unconventional hijinks employed to ram through Obamacare. They are rejecting the mandate of the election and the limitations of the Constitution. They do so arrogantly and without remorse. And their popularity has reached an historic low.

We might be able to suffer through Congress's treachery if we were blessed with a courageous leader in the White House. Instead our President continues to whine about his legacy.

The Hill reports: "In urging lawmakers to vote for his tax deal, President Obama is using one of his go-to lines from the healthcare debate, according to a Democratic lawmaker.

Obama is telling members of Congress that failure to pass the tax-cut legislation could result in the end of his presidency, Rep. Peter DeFazio (Ore.) said.

"The White House is putting on tremendous pressure, making phone calls, the president is making phone calls saying this is the end of his presidency if he doesn't get this bad deal," he told CNN's Eliot Spitzer" (Fabian).

The people spoke in November and the current ruling class has chosen to continue to ignore the very people they serve. They treat our governing framework with disdain and the President, instead of advocating for his constituents and protecting the Constitution, worries instead about his legacy. Hamilton had it right when he suggested the cure for an ill-administration is a "change of men" and that the "original fountain of all legitimate authority" is indeed the CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE.

Our current ruling class is imposing their will against the consent of those they serve. This is a dangerous and capricious precedent. Yet our president is focused merely on saving his presidency while the deficit quadruples and this cabal of self-serving bandits squanders our children's future.

We need a change of men. And we need it fast.

Come January. Quick.

The Washington Elite--Meet Charlie Rangel

A few years back I began working on a book about tax policy history in America entitled The Power to Destroy. The title comes from a ruling by John Marshall, the fourth, yet arguably the most important Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. In McCulloch v. Maryland, which involved the question of taxation and the rights of the states to tax the federal government Marshall wrote: “…the power to tax involves the power to destroy.”

In a section discussing out of control Washington spending I wrote: In FY 2008, the U.S. Congress pushed through $17.2 billion in pork attached to 12 appropriations bills. There were many moments to cherish but we will consider but one here; certainly not the biggest earmark but one of the most interesting.

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), a nineteen term representative, asked for and got $1,950,000 for a library and archives at the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at The City College of New York. In other words Congressman Rangel received $1.95 million dollars of my money and yours to finance a little library named for himself at a college in his district. He was challenged in his request by a mere two term republican from California, John Campbell who said, “You don’t agree with me or see any problem with us, as members, sending taxpayer funds in the creation of things named after ourselves while we’re still here?” Rangel did not. He responded, “I would have a problem if you did it, because I don’t think that you’ve been around long enough that having your name on something to inspire a building like this in a school.”

Today Congress voted to censure Mr. Rangel. By all reports he is a likable man but that is no excuse for his abuse of the trust bestowed on him by the American people. It's also no excuse for the cavalier way he has used taxpayer money.

The Wall Street Journal writes: "During the debate, Mr. Rangel sat slumped in a chair on the House floor as fellow lawmakers said his misconduct had dishonored them all. The 80-year-old Democrat who has represented Harlem for 40 years was found to have misused congressional perks, failed to pay taxes on some income for 17 years, failed to report assets properly for a decade and misused a rent-stabilized apartment as a campaign office" (WSJ).

Any one want to venture a guess as to what would happen if we failed to pay taxes on some of our income for 17 years...?

I know! I know!

The Land of Fools

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."--Abraham Lincoln

Welcome to the land of fools, California, where you can indeed fool all of the people all of the time. Witness Tuesday's election.

• Jerry Brown: former two-term governor who, despite term limit rules in California has argued his previous two-terms occurred prior to the term limit law being passed and therefore, didn't count. This from the recent State Attorney General who should be enforcing laws on behalf of Californians not skirting them. But then he has an impressive "skirting" record given his office's invisibility in defending California voters against the court's ruling overturning Prop 8 for the second time. His role as governor with Prop 13 is another story. And then there's his problem with language. First, he compared his opponent to a Nazi propagandist like Joseph Goebbels, then someone on his campaign staff (most pegged his wife) called Meg Whitman a "whore." Of course, the whore comment related to Meg's supposed relationship to the public unions--the very unions Jerry created when he was governor in the 70's. Now that's irony. I've met Jerry Brown. A number of times. He's a kick. But eccentric, left wing policies on steroids are not what California needs. We are already hemorrhaging from those very policies. The very same economic and centralized government policies the rest of the country repudiated last night were embraced by a majority of Californians.
• Barbara Boxer: THIS is the best we have? The most liberal Senator in the Senate. We've sent her to represent us again. Despite the fact that California faces one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. Despite the fact she is a do-nothing (check her record), self-important (watch her interchange with the General during Senate hearings), silly (watch her debate with her opponent) ridiculously leftist members of the Senate.

Well done California. President Lincoln was wrong--you really can fool the majority of the people all of the time. As California unemployment rises and taxes are tacked on your every exhale...I'll be basking in the Arizona sun. If you don't mind, I am going to sit this one out.

Obamacare, A Boon to Scientology?

Did you know that there are, "reportedly," groups that are exempt from the Obamacare requirement to own health insurance? I say this, mindful that Nancy Pelosi declared "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it." It passed and we are still trying to find out what's in it.

But, according to Sally Pipes in her book, The Truth About Obamacare, some religious groups are exempt from the mandate to own health care. Groups such as "Christian Scientists, who are uncomfortable with modern medicine, as well as Scientologists, whose criticisms are less clear, and Muslims who might oppose the idea of insurance altogether. American Indians are also exempt" (41).

If true, we may need to refresh our reading of the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

Arbitrary exemptions will do nothing to increase the popularity of Obamacare, but may go a long way in increasing the the membership rolls of Scientologists.

Based on my read, equal is equal.

Obamacare Waiting in the Weeds

With the increasing likelihood of the Republican party regaining control of the House and, perhaps, the Senate, it is time for concerned citizens to turn our attention to Obamacare.

To do so we must follow the trail of bread crumbs that brought us to this point. Let's start with what Obama told us when he was campaigning non-stop around the country for health care reform.

First, he told us that our health care system was in crisis with over 45 million uninsured Americans. Obamacare would insure everyone he told us. Next he promised that Obamacare would reduce the cost of health care for each family. He announced a savings for the average family of $2,500 per year. He pledged the government would spend less on health care when Obamacare was implemented and finally he declared emphatically that those of use who liked our health care plan could keep it AND the cost of our coverage would decrease.

Abracadabra. More and better care for much less money. Welcome to Obamaland where the laws of physics ("the seas will go down") and the laws of economics (reduce competition, increase demand and supply will expand while costs decrease) are suspended. That is some rabbit, Mr. Obama. And some hat.

But what has really happened since Obamacare was signed into law last March? Health care insurance premiums are rising at breathtaking speed. Announcements of insurance companies getting out of the health care insurance business are increasing. Enormous tax hikes loom. One month after passage the chief actuary for the Medicare and Medicaid Services found that spending on health care under Obamacare will increase $311 billion from 2010 to 2019, a rise strictly due to the passage of the bill. He also estimates that 23 million people will still be uninsured by 2019.

Oh.

But there's more. The CBO estimated that the cost of Obamacare to taxpayers would be $989 billion from 2010 to 2019. The problem with that estimate is that the bill is front loaded which masks the true cost. Tax hikes begin years before the "benefits" kick in in 2014.. The cost in the first ten years of Obamacare (2014-2024) are closer to $2.5 trillion according to Sally Pipes new book, The Truth About Obamacare.

As Ms. Pipes summarizes, "So after the creation of 159 new agencies, the promulgation of 2,562 pages of bureaucratic regulations, and the spending of $2.5 trillion in tax dollars, two-thirds of those uninsured still will be. Only in government could that be considered a victory" (48).

As we prepare to vote in November let us keep in mind that under the current leadership the 2010 deficit (and this is before Obamacare) is 1.3 trillion dollars. The national debt has increased $3 trillion dollars since Obama took office. Huge income tax hikes loom on January 1st for working Americans while unemployment has sustained levels only seen during the Great Depression. Congress has recessed while neglecting to pass a budget, perhaps their single, most important function. And our president tours the country castigating business.

If that is not enough, waiting in the weeds is Obamacare, the greatest potential threat to our economic freedom yet.