Warning: Insanely long post

So Obama made his speech on 4/13, here are his words and my comments:

Good afternoon.  It’s great to be back at GW.  I want you to know that one of the reasons I kept the government open was so I could be here today with all of you.  I wanted to make sure you had one more excuse to skip class.  You’re welcome.

Amazing how his arrogance shows even when he is joking...he was joking...right?  I mean it does sound kinda like, "I single-handedly keep the government from shutting down, by my sheer will!", but that is just my bitter clinging perspective...I sure it was just a joke.

Of course, what we’ve been debating here in Washington for the last few weeks will affect your lives in ways that are potentially profound.  This debate over budgets and deficits is about more than just numbers on a page, more than just cutting and spending.  It’s about the kind of future we want.  It’s about the kind of country we believe in.  And that’s what I want to talk about today.

So here we have a rare, honest, transparent moment from Obama.  He is telling us to ignore the numbers and focus on how we can change our government into something we can believe in, because, let's face it, who can believe in this mess called America.  It is about what we want, of course, when he says "we" he means everyone except Republicans, Tea-Partiers, conservatives, and anyone who listens to Rush Limbaugh.

From our first days as a nation, we have put our faith in free markets and free enterprise as the engine of America’s wealth and prosperity.  More than citizens of any other country, we are rugged individualists, a self-reliant people with a healthy skepticism of too much government.

No, from the First days we put our FAITH in God as a nation, which is why we were blessed so greatly for so long.  FREE markets and FREE enterprise are just the natural vehicle for a nation that believes that certain liberties are granted by God and should not be infringed upon by the government or other men.

But there has always been another thread running throughout our history – a belief that we are all connected; and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation.  We believe, in the words of our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves.  And so we’ve built a strong military to keep us secure, and public schools and universities to educate our citizens.  We’ve laid down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce.  We’ve supported the work of scientists and researchers whose discoveries have saved lives, unleashed repeated technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs and entire industries.  Each of us has benefitted from these investments, and we are a more prosperous country as a result.  

It is actually the same thread, a thread that says we were all created by the same Creator; and that we should love one another and care for each other, as our Creator has done for us.  As for President Lincoln, here is part of the actual writing Obama editted to suit his personal agenda (read the whole thing here if you like):

The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves, in their separate and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere.

Even if you assume that Obama's misquote of President Lincoln is accurate, there is still plenty of debate to be had over whether the Federal Government can do better than us on most things.  The logic Obama is trying to sell us here is that the government has done a great job so far, so shouldn't we have it do even more for us?  Well if you consider the adverse effect on our ability to do for ourselves that is created by constantly bearing up the burden of a government that wants to do everything for us, this logic is illogical.  Let's see where he goes from here.

Part of this American belief that we are all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security.  We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff, may strike any one of us.  “There but for the grace of God go I,” we say to ourselves, and so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, and those with disabilities.  We are a better country because of these commitments.  I’ll go further – we would not be a great country without those commitments.  

OK, no big surprise here.  He builds on the American belief idea...which...was...hmmmm...oh yes, we are all connected by being forced to contribute to all these programs no matter how inefficient they are, how much fraud they have, or what objections we have to what they do...yes, we are connected.  Then he moves on to enlighten us that we can't take care of ourselves or each other no matter how responsible we are.  Here is where it gets a little confusing...he shoves the quote "There but for the grace of God go I" into our mouths.  Funny that he would quote the Bible here...oh...wait...that isn't from the Bible, it is a quote from an Englishman named John Bradford (see the history of the quote here...it is pretty interesting) and he was talking about criminals, not responsible citizens overwhelmed by "bad luck".  Furthermore, if we were to say that to ourselves, I would think that we were thinking, "If I were to depend on myself, or others, or my government, instead of the grace of God, I would be as bad off as that poor schmuck that did.", which doesn't seem to lead to an urge to "contribute" to scams like Medicare, Social Security, and Unemployment insurance (it seems to do a great job of guaranteeing high rates of unemployment by paying more than actual employers...I wonder how they can afford to do that?)  What leads us to "contribute" to these programs?  Mostly threats of losing all you own and jail time.

For much of the last century, our nation found a way to afford these investments and priorities with the taxes paid by its citizens.  As a country that values fairness, wealthier individuals have traditionally born a greater share of this burden than the middle class or those less fortunate.  This is not because we begrudge those who’ve done well – we rightly celebrate their success.  Rather, it is a basic reflection of our belief that those who have benefitted most from our way of life can afford to give a bit more back.  Moreover, this belief has not hindered the success of those at the top of the income scale, who continue to do better and better with each passing year.

Yes, the government can afford whatever it wants as long as it can steal the money to pay for it from people who are hardworking and productive.  Fairness?  Fairness is not a value, it is a buzzword used by slick politicians as a preface to an agenda in order to paint anyone who disagrees as unfair.  The is supported by saying we don't begrudge rich folks being rich, we are celebrating it by stealing their money.  This is a reflection of our basic belief that rich folks don't need all that money anyways, so they need to give to the government to be redistributed to their favored subjects.

I have to take exception to the "...individuals have traditionally born a greater share of the burden..." remark as well.  This "tradition" was not one introduced by the founders of our nation, but by other socialists and progressives later.  It is interesting how this tradition seems sacred to Obama, yet the tradition of marriage being between one man and one woman, a much older and fervently held tradition, needs to change.

Now, at certain times – particularly during periods of war or recession – our nation has had to borrow money to pay for some of our priorities.  And as most families understand, a little credit card debt isn’t going to hurt if it’s temporary.

This is a great point, the federal government isn't doing anything that most Americans aren't doing themselves...so that makes it right.  Oh, and it is temporary debt...you know, like the last debt we took on was paid off in only...uh...I am not sure how many years, but it was paid off...uh...with more debt.

But as far back as the 1980s, America started amassing debt at more alarming levels, and our leaders began to realize that a larger challenge was on the horizon.  They knew that eventually, the Baby Boom generation would retire, which meant a much bigger portion of our citizens would be relying on programs like Medicare, Social Security, and possibly Medicaid.  Like parents with young children who know they have to start saving for the college years, America had to start borrowing less and saving more to prepare for the retirement of an entire generation. 

That is an interesting analogy, the government is the parent of the Baby Boomers, and now has to prepare to take care of them like a teen headed to college to party while their parents flip the bill.  I think I follow.

To meet this challenge, our leaders came together three times during the 1990s to reduce our nation’s deficit.  They forged historic agreements that required tough decisions made by the first President Bush and President Clinton; by Democratic Congresses and a Republican Congress.  All three agreements asked for shared responsibility and shared sacrifice, but they largely protected the middle class, our commitments to seniors, and key investments in our future. 

A little history revision here...let's take the boon to government coffers created by Reagan's tax policy and argue about how to spend it.  This has nothing to do with first President "Read my lips" Bush and "It depends on the definition of 'is'" Clinton.  Again I ask, have we ever paid off the national debt?  I will give you a hint, Clinton didn't do it, he just administered a surplus (a surplus is an overpayment by the US taxpayers).  Try looking into Andrew Jackson's administration in 1835!

As a result of these bipartisan efforts, America’s finances were in great shape by the year 2000. We went from deficit to surplus.  America was actually on track to becoming completely debt-free, and we were prepared for the retirement of the Baby Boomers. 

This is starting to sound like a fairy tale...I bet the evil character is about to enter.

But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed.  We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program – but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending.  Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts – tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade.

To give you an idea of how much damage this caused to our national checkbook, consider this:  in the last decade, if we had simply found a way to pay for the tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit, our deficit would currently be at low historical levels in the coming years. 

Boooooooooo!  Who could have done these things?  Unmask the villain!

Of course, that’s not what happened.  And so, by the time I took office, we once again found ourselves deeply in debt and unprepared for a Baby Boom retirement that is now starting to take place.  When I took office, our projected deficit was more than $1 trillion.  On top of that, we faced a terrible financial crisis and a recession that, like most recessions, led us to temporarily borrow even more.  In this case, we took a series of emergency steps that saved millions of jobs, kept credit flowing, and provided working families extra money in their pockets.  It was the right thing to do, but these steps were expensive, and added to our deficits in the short term.

Not my fault.  I did the right thing.  We will pay it off in no time.

So that’s how our fiscal challenge was created.  This is how we got here.  And now that our economic recovery is gaining strength, Democrats and Republicans must come together and restore the fiscal responsibility that served us so well in the 1990s.  We have to live within our means, reduce our deficit, and get back on a path that will allow us to pay down our debt.  And we have to do it in a way that protects the recovery, and protects the investments we need to grow, create jobs, and win the future.

So this part is a little pep talk so we all remember we are on the same team.  Most importantly, Obama didn't do ANYTHING to cause all these problems, hey, don't shoot the messenger!  Now that he has explained how all this just happened to him, lets get this team fired up and start doing all the right stuff.

Now, before I get into how we can achieve this goal, some of you might be wondering, “Why is this so important?  Why does this matter to me?”

Here’s why.  Even after our economy recovers, our government will still be on track to spend more money than it takes in throughout this decade and beyond.  That means we’ll have to keep borrowing more from countries like China.  And that means more of your tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on all the loans we keep taking out.  By the end of this decade, the interest we owe on our debt could rise to nearly $1 trillion.  Just the interest payments. 

I can see how that might be a problem.

Then, as the Baby Boomers start to retire and health care costs continue to rise, the situation will get even worse.  By 2025, the amount of taxes we currently pay will only be enough to finance our health care programs, Social Security, and the interest we owe on our debt.  That’s it.  Every other national priority – education, transportation, even national security – will have to be paid for with borrowed money.

Or maybe it finances all the other stuff and leaves out health care programs and Social Security, either way it is like saying, "But wait!  There is more!", except in a bad way.

 Ultimately, all this rising debt will cost us jobs and damage our economy.  It will prevent us from making the investments we need to win the future.  We won’t be able to afford good schools, new research, or the repair of roads and bridges – all the things that will create new jobs and businesses here in America.

When he says "we" here, it means the federal government this time.  The implication is that jobs, economic growth, good schools, research, roads, and bridges are all created exclusively by the government.

Businesses will be less likely to invest and open up shop in a country that seems unwilling or unable to balance its books.  And if our creditors start worrying that we may be unable to pay back our debts, it could drive up interest rates for everyone who borrows money – making it harder for businesses to expand and hire, or families to take out a mortgage. 

Our nation is currently in the unwilling category at the moment, but unable to pay back our debts is right around the corner.

The good news is, this doesn’t have to be our future.  This doesn’t have to be the country we leave to our children.  We can solve this problem.  We came together as Democrats and Republicans to meet this challenge before, and we can do it again.

I wouldn't say we ever met it before, more like we flirted with it, then left with another guy.  If only somebody would come up with a serious plan, like one that would cut $6+ trillion, you know, as a first step.

But that starts by being honest about what’s causing our deficit.  You see, most Americans tend to dislike government spending in the abstract, but they like the stuff it buys.  Most of us, regardless of party affiliation, believe that we should have a strong military and a strong defense.  Most Americans believe we should invest in education and medical research.  Most Americans think we should protect commitments like Social Security and Medicare.  And without even looking at a poll, my finely honed political skills tell me that almost no one believes they should be paying higher taxes.

Obama wants to be honest?  That is interesting, a joke in the middle of the speech instead of just at the beginning.  The real question is do most Americans believe we should invest in education, medical research, Social Security, Medicare, Planned Parenthood, the United Nations, on and on, if we can't afford it?  Again, he suggests that if the government doesn't do things things, they just won't happen.  That is not anything like honest.

Because all this spending is popular with both Republicans and Democrats alike, and because nobody wants to pay higher taxes, politicians are often eager to feed the impression that solving the problem is just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse –that tackling the deficit issue won’t require tough choices.  Or they suggest that we can somehow close our entire deficit by eliminating things like foreign aid, even though foreign aid makes up about 1% of our entire budget.

Well why don't we pick some of that low hanging fruit first, then see what else we can cut.  Maybe some of those shiny new entitlements like ObamaCare could be cut BEFORE we fund them with more debt?

So here’s the truth.

 BAAAAAHAHAHAHHAAH!!!  Another joke!  This guy kills me!

So here’s the truth.  Around two-thirds of our budget is spent on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and national security.  Programs like unemployment insurance, student loans, veterans’ benefits, and tax credits for working families take up another 20%.  What’s left, after interest on the debt, is just 12 percent for everything else. That’s 12 percent for all of our other national priorities like education and clean energy; medical research and transportation; food safety and keeping our air and water clean.

Up until now, the cuts proposed by a lot of folks in Washington have focused almost exclusively on that 12%.  But cuts to that 12% alone won’t solve the problem.  So any serious plan to tackle our deficit will require us to put everything on the table, and take on excess spending wherever it exists in the budget.  A serious plan doesn’t require us to balance our budget overnight – in fact, economists think that with the economy just starting to grow again, we will need a phased-in approach – but it does require tough decisions and support from leaders in both parties.  And above all, it will require us to choose a vision of the America we want to see five and ten and twenty years down the road.

These numbers actually mean something, and it will require all public servants to make hard choices, but it must be done.  By the way, "phased-in-approach" is political speak for, re-election issue.  Choose a vision of America?  OK, how about the United States of America, you know, founded a bit over 200 years ago.  Declared by an awesome document that speaks of a love for individual liberty.  Yeah...I like that one.

One vision has been championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their party’s presidential candidates.  It’s a plan that aims to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years, and one that addresses the challenge of Medicare and Medicaid in the years after that. 

Correction: $6.2 trillion.

Those are both worthy goals for us to achieve.  But the way this plan achieves those goals would lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we’ve known throughout most of our history. 

Correction: Very Recent History. 

A 70% cut to clean energy.  A 25% cut in education.  A 30% cut in transportation.  Cuts in college Pell Grants that will grow to more than $1,000 per year.  That’s what they’re proposing.  These aren’t the kind of cuts you make when you’re trying to get rid of some waste or find extra savings in the budget.  These aren’t the kind of cuts that Republicans and Democrats on the Fiscal Commission proposed.  These are the kind of cuts that tell us we can’t afford the America we believe in.  And they paint a vision of our future that’s deeply pessimistic. 

I know, I know, but bumping those numbers up to 100% would be too tough right off the bat.  Remember, the economist said we should phase it in, so these numbers are just a start, no need to call us pessimists!  

It’s a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can’t afford to fix them.  If there are bright young Americans who have the drive and the will but not the money to go to college, we can’t afford to send them.  Go to China and you’ll see businesses opening research labs and solar facilities.  South Korean children are outpacing our kids in math and science.  Brazil is investing billions in new infrastructure and can run half their cars not on high-priced gasoline, but biofuels.  And yet, we are presented with a vision that says the United States of America – the greatest nation on Earth – can’t afford any of this.

If we cut our budget to what we can afford, and we are as great as all this, can't the bridges be maintained for less?  Can't bright young Americans work their way through higher education?  Go to China and you will see poverty, a housing crisis that will make the recent on in the US seem like nothing, and a communist government that is corrupt.  Why shouldn't South Korean children out pace us in science and math?  That almost sounds racist.  What does Brazil's infrastructure investment have to do with our budget (despite some of our federal government's oil subsidies to their oil drilling outfits)?  Let's not get on some kind of ego trip here.  We can afford what we can afford.  Seems to me the greatest nation on Earth (sounds like a Barnum & Baily intro...how appropriate) would operate on principles such as, "Don't spend what you don't have."

It’s a vision that says America can’t afford to keep the promise we’ve made to care for our seniors.  It says that ten years from now, if you’re a 65 year old who’s eligible for Medicare, you should have to pay nearly $6,400 more than you would today.  It says instead of guaranteed health care, you will get a voucher.  And if that voucher isn’t worth enough to buy insurance, tough luck – you’re on your own.  Put simply, it ends Medicare as we know it. 

It is a type of vision called disillusionment, that is when you realize what you thought was true is not.  That is the beginning of recovery, just ask an alcoholic who thought they could handle it.  It is not pleasant to realize you have been a fool, but at least you can stop at that point.  We need that kind of vision.

This is a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit.  And who are those 50 million Americans?  Many are someone’s grandparents who wouldn’t be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid.  Many are poor children.  Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s syndrome.  Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care.  These are the Americans we’d be telling to fend for themselves.       

Who is the pessimist now?  How does he know we won't step up and take care of each other?  Is he trying to get me to believe that somehow the government is more generous than we are?

Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can’t afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can’t afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy.  Think about it.  In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90% of all working Americans actually declined.  The top 1% saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each.  And that’s who needs to pay less taxes?  They want to give people like me a two hundred thousand dollar tax cut that’s paid for by asking thirty three seniors to each pay six thousand dollars more in health costs?   That’s not right, and it’s not going to happen as long as I’m President.

Oooooo, he sounds so tough.  The only question is how will that not happen?  I am guessing more debt and higher taxes (especially for those greedy rich people.)  Let's see what happens next.

The fact is, their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America.  As Ronald Reagan’s own budget director said, there’s nothing “serious” or “courageous” about this plan.  There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.  There’s nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill.  And this is not a vision of the America I know. 

It seems that it is both about changing a social compact that can't be maintained, AND reducing the deficit.  Why should the 90% he mentioned earlier ride on the coattails of the top 1%?  Are we talking about some tradition of entitlement here?

The America I know is generous and compassionate; a land of opportunity and optimism.  We take responsibility for ourselves and each other; for the country we want and the future we share.  We are the nation that built a railroad across a continent and brought light to communities shrouded in darkness.  We sent a generation to college on the GI bill and saved millions of seniors from poverty with Social Security and Medicare.  We have led the world in scientific research and technological breakthroughs that have transformed millions of lives. 

Rah Rah Sis Boom bah....GOOOOOOOOOO America!

This is who we are.  This is the America I know.  We don’t have to choose between a future of spiraling debt and one where we forfeit investments in our people and our country.  To meet our fiscal challenge, we will need to make reforms.  We will all need to make sacrifices.  But we do not have to sacrifice the America we believe in.  And as long as I’m President, we won’t.

More tough talk, he is SUCH a hero!

Today, I’m proposing a more balanced approach to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction over twelve years.  It’s an approach that borrows from the recommendations of the bipartisan Fiscal Commission I appointed last year, and builds on the roughly $1 trillion in deficit reduction I already proposed in my 2012 budget.  It’s an approach that puts every kind of spending on the table, but one that protects the middle-class, our promise to seniors, and our investments in the future. 

With all the tough talk, I figured he would just assume command and order the balanced approach...that must be why he is President and I am not.

The first step in our approach is to keep annual domestic spending low by building on the savings that both parties agreed to last week – a step that will save us about $750 billion over twelve years.  We will make the tough cuts necessary to achieve these savings, including in programs I care about, but I will not sacrifice the core investments we need to grow and create jobs.  We’ll invest in medical research and clean energy technology.  We’ll invest in new roads and airports and broadband access.  We will invest in education and job training.  We will do what we need to compete and we will win the future.   

Soooo...cut spending on non-essetial things, but not broadband access and clean energy...got it.

The second step in our approach is to find additional savings in our defense budget.  As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than protecting our national security, and I will never accept cuts that compromise our ability to defend our homeland or America’s interests around the world.  But as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, has said, the greatest long-term threat to America’s national security is America’s debt.

I don't know Admiral Mullen personally, but I doubt he was inferring that we needed to cut the defense budget...just a guess.

Just as we must find more savings in domestic programs, we must do the same in defense.  Over the last two years, Secretary Gates has courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending.  I believe we can do that again.  We need to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but conduct a fundamental review of America’s missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world.  I intend to work with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs on this review, and I will make specific decisions about spending after it’s complete.      

Blah blah blah...reduce military spending...blah blah blah.  I would say that both of the most recent Presidents have interfered with our military missions that they are such a cluster all we can do is exit and be ready when our enemies come back stronger than before.

The third step in our approach is to further reduce health care spending in our budget.  Here, the difference with the House Republican plan could not be clearer:  their plan lowers the government’s health care bills by asking seniors and poor families to pay them instead.  Our approach lowers the government’s health care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself. 

I guess only Obama has that magic wand that makes healthcare cost less.

Already, the reforms we passed in the health care law will reduce our deficit by $1 trillion.  My approach would build on these reforms.  We will reduce wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments.  We will cut spending on prescription drugs by using Medicare’s purchasing power to drive greater efficiency and speed generic brands of medicine onto the market.  We will work with governors of both parties to demand more efficiency and accountability from Medicaid.  We will change the way we pay for health care – not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results.  And we will slow the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services seniors need.  

If the Doctors, nurses, medical experts, and consumers are so good at figuring this out, tell me why we want the federal government involved?

Now, we believe the reforms we’ve proposed to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid will enable us to keep these commitments to our citizens while saving us $500 billion by 2023, and an additional one trillion dollars in the decade after that.  And if we’re wrong, and Medicare costs rise faster than we expect, this approach will give the independent commission the authority to make additional savings by further improving Medicare.  

Why don't they just do the further improving medicare thing from the beginning?

But let me be absolutely clear:  I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society.  I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs.  I will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to fend for themselves.  We will reform these programs, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations. 

I know it sucks, but this is how it always is with pyramid schemes. 

That includes, by the way, our commitment to Social Security.  While Social Security is not the cause of our deficit, it faces real long-term challenges in a country that is growing older.  As I said in the State of the Union, both parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security for future generations.  But we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.

"Americans' guaranteed retirement income"  This is real life, there is no such thing as guaranteed anything.

The fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code.  In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans.  But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society.  And I refuse to renew them again. 

Stick it to those rich guys, yeah!

Beyond that, the tax code is also loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions.  And while I agree with the goals of many of these deductions, like homeownership or charitable giving, we cannot ignore the fact that they provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 while doing nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn’t itemize.   

OK, this is just blatant misrepresentation now.  To get the amazing $75,000 deduction you would have to either give away $75,000 to charities, or invest much more in a business.  The reason why the "typical middle-class family" doesn't get the deduction is that they don't make the gift or investment.  So if you disallow those who will give or invest from deducting it from their income, will that encourage or discourage giving and investment?  Charities and businesses are almost always many times more efficient in the application of this money to the benefit of those in need than a government program. 

My budget calls for limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2% of Americans – a reform that would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over ten years.  But to reduce the deficit, I believe we should go further.  That’s why I’m calling on Congress to reform our individual tax code so that it is fair and simple – so that the amount of taxes you pay isn’t determined by what kind of accountant you can afford.  I believe reform should protect the middle class, promote economic growth, and build on the Fiscal Commission’s model of reducing tax expenditures so that there is enough savings to both lower rates and lower the deficit.  And as I called for in the State of the Union, we should reform our corporate tax code as well, to make our businesses and our economy more competitive.  

Translation:  My budget calls for creating $320 billion in additional tax revenues by disallowing a much larger amount of giving and investment by individuals.

This is my approach to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next twelve years.  It’s an approach that achieves about $2 trillion in spending cuts across the budget.  It will lower our interest payments on the debt by $1 trillion. It calls for tax reform to cut about $1 trillion in spending from the tax code.  And it achieves these goals while protecting the middle class, our commitment to seniors, and our investments in the future. 

In the coming years, if the recovery speeds up and our economy grows faster than our current projections, we can make even greater progress than I have pledged here.  But just to hold Washington – and me – accountable and make sure that the debt burden continues to decline, my plan includes a debt failsafe.  If, by 2014, our debt is not projected to fall as a share of the economy – or if Congress has failed to act – my plan will require us to come together and make up the additional savings with more spending cuts and more spending reductions in the tax code.  That should be an incentive for us to act boldly now, instead of kicking our problems further down the road.  

Translation:  Since I know this really changes nothing, my plan includes an opportunity to act like I am holding the legislature accountable.  They have to try and make this all happen, I just talk about it and act tough.

So this is our vision for America – a vision where we live within our means while still investing in our future; where everyone makes sacrifices but no one bears all the burden; where we provide a basic measure of security for our citizens and rising opportunity for our children.  

Translation: And they lived happily ever after!

Of course, there will be those who disagree with my approach.  Some will argue we shouldn’t even consider raising taxes, even if only on the wealthiest Americans.  It’s just an article of faith for them.  I say that at a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century, the most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more.  I don’t need another tax cut.  Warren Buffett doesn’t need another tax cut.  Not if we have to pay for it by making seniors pay more for Medicare.  Or by cutting kids from Head Start.  Or by taking away college scholarships that I wouldn’t be here without.  That some of you wouldn’t be here without.  And I believe that most wealthy Americans would agree with me.  They want to give back to the country that’s done so much for them.  Washington just hasn’t asked them to. 

OK, so you and Warren Buffett are opting out of reasonable taxes...the rest of us are not.  The thing about how you wouldn't be here if there weren't federal scholarships might not being playing the way you think...I really wish you weren't here.

Others will say that we shouldn’t even talk about cutting spending until the economy is fully recovered.  I’m sympathetic to this view, which is one of the reasons I supported the payroll tax cuts we passed in December.  It’s also why we have to use a scalpel and not a machete to reduce the deficit – so that we can keep making the investments that create jobs.  But doing nothing on the deficit is just not an option.  Our debt has grown so large that we could do real damage to the economy if we don’t begin a process now to get our fiscal house in order.  

Um, we COULD do REAL damage to the economy?!?!?  HELLO!  That part is done.  I would rather have a conservative with a machete than a socialist with a scalpel any day.

Finally, there are those who believe we shouldn’t make any reforms to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security out of a fear that any talk of change to these programs will usher in the sort of radical steps that House Republicans have proposed.  I understand these fears.  But I guarantee that if we don’t make any changes at all, we won’t be able to keep our commitments to a retiring generation that will live longer and face higher health care costs than those who came before. 

Whew, I am glad you said that!  I was so worried that Medicare and Social Security wouldn't be there for me.  Now I feel much better, thanks.

Indeed, to those in my own party, I say that if we truly believe in a progressive vision of our society, we have the obligation to prove that we can afford our commitments.  If we believe that government can make a difference in people’s lives, we have the obligation to prove that it works – by making government smarter, leaner and more effective. 

I really think he is over doing it with all the jokes.

Of course, there are those who will simply say that there’s no way we can come together and agree on a solution to this challenge.  They’ll say the politics of this city are just too broken; that the choices are just too hard; that the parties are just too far apart.  And after a few years in this job, I certainly have some sympathy for this view.    

 Oh, now I feel sorry for the hard time Obama has had in DC...not.

But I also know that we’ve come together and met big challenges before.  Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill came together to save Social Security for future generations.  The first President Bush and a Democratic Congress came together to reduce the deficit.  President Clinton and a Republican Congress battled each other ferociously and still found a way to balance the budget.  In the last few months, both parties have come together to pass historic tax relief and spending cuts.  And I know there are Republicans and Democrats in Congress who want to see a balanced approach to deficit reduction.

 Invoking Reagan's name shows he is not a liberal, but a centrist trying to bring people together...not.

I believe we can and must come together again.  This morning, I met with Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress to discuss the approach I laid out today.  And in early May, the Vice President will begin regular meetings with leaders in both parties with the aim of reaching a final agreement on a plan to reduce the deficit by the end of June. 

Joe Biden is getting involved?  Now we are really screwed.

I don’t expect the details in any final agreement to look exactly like the approach I laid out today.  I’m eager to hear other ideas from all ends of the political spectrum.  And though I’m sure the criticism of what I’ve said here today will be fierce in some quarters, and my critique of the House Republican approach has been strong, Americans deserve and will demand that we all bridge our differences, and find common ground. 

Compromise with liberal progressives always means you move in their direction, just not to the crazy levels they suggested.  As this happens over and over we slowly keep moving towards their socialist agenda.

This larger debate we’re having, about the size and role of government, has been with us since our founding days.  And during moments of great challenge and change, like the one we’re living through now, the debate gets sharper and more vigorous.  That’s a good thing.  As a country that prizes both our individual freedom and our obligations to one another, this is one of the most important debates we can have. 

Translation:  Let's have a vigorous debate, lets put on a good show.  In the end we will wear you down and ignore everything you say, but we don't want it to look like that.

But no matter what we argue or where we stand, we’ve always held certain beliefs as Americans.  We believe that in order to preserve our own freedoms and pursue our own happiness, we can’t just think about ourselves.  We have to think about the country that made those liberties possible.  We have to think about our fellow citizens with whom we share a community.  And we have to think about what’s required to preserve the American Dream for future generations. 

Translations: No matter what we argue or where we stand, in the end, I will tell you what we believe and you will do as I say.

This sense of responsibility – to each other and to our country – this isn’t a partisan feeling.  It isn’t a Democratic or Republican idea.  It’s patriotism.

Translation: In fact, while I am at it, I will redefine patriotism to suit me as well.

The other day I received a letter from a man in Florida.  He started off by telling me he didn’t vote for me and he hasn’t always agreed with me.  But even though he’s worried about our economy and the state of our politics, he said, 

“I still believe.  I believe in that great country that my grandfather told me about.   I believe that somewhere lost in this quagmire of petty bickering on every news station, the ‘American Dream’ is still alive…

We need to use our dollars here rebuilding, refurbishing and restoring all that our ancestors struggled to create and maintain…We as a people must do this together, no matter the color of the state one comes from or the side of the aisle one might sit on.” 

I still believe as well.  And I know that if we can come together, and uphold our responsibilities to one another and to this larger enterprise that is America, we will keep the dream of our founding alive in our time, and pass on to our children the country we believe in.  Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

The dream of our founding?  Are you kidding me?!?!  The founders we bold in declaring individual liberty and being responsible for ourselves.  Preserving liberty WAS the responsibility we had towards each other.  Preserving entitlements was not what this nation is founded on. 

Medicare Guarantee

"They end the Medicare guarantee," said top Budget Committee Democrat Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. "They force seniors to leave the Medicare program and go into the private insurance market where costs continue to rise day in and day out."

I don't understand. I thought the idea that things generally get more expensive as time goes on was pretty elementary. We actually hope for this when it comes to property values. If we manage our finances properly our investments will keep pace with inflation.

Does our federal government owe anything to those who have been forced to participate in the Medicare scam? Yes it does. Can it actually deliver what it promises? No.

I recently watched the TV show Out of the Wild (I love NetFlix streaming). The show takes regular folks and drops them into the Alaskan wilderness with a map and various supplies (after some basic wilderness survival training). For the most part it is typical extreme reality TV programming, but one part was especially interesting. In the beginning they took EVERYTHING they found, including a small guitar, a wooden box, a and canoe paddle. As they started hiking back to civilization they soon realized that there was a cost to each item they carried. At first some of the stronger ones carried more of the heavy items, but that soon took a toll on them, and all agreed that they couldn't afford to carry everything. Eventually even items as useful as a rifle were left behind because the cost was too great. There was nobody but them to carry the weight.

We have a similar situation with our federal budget, there is a cost to everything we carry. The difference is that politicians have made a career out of using their ability to tax and spend to force some to carry heavy items that benefit only those the politicians allow to benefit. This social engineering has consistently failed to improve the character of our nation, it only creates class warfare that will eventually destroy it.

"No matter what they say, the fact is the GOP wants to finance their tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires by hiking prescription drug prices for seniors." - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Drug prices for all of us, regardless of our age, will go up over time. The only way for these prices to be artificially low for seniors is for the rest of us to carry the weight. Many of us believe it is good and right to carry this weight for others, but the federal government should not be forcing us to do it. Furthermore, the federal government is extremely inefficient at managing social programs. Fraud is rampant in the Medicare system (estimated to total about $60 billion a year in 2009) with only 5% of all claims being audited. The present value of unfunded obligations under all parts of Medicare during FY 2009 over an infinite horizon is approximately $36 trillion. In other words, this amount would have to be set aside today such that the principal and interest would cover the shortfall assuming the program continues indefinitely.

What does this all mean? Well if the hikers in Out of the Wild had acted as we are, they would have eventually all died before they could get help. The cost of bearing the weight of all those items would have caused them to burn a lot more calories, increasing their need for food and possibility of injury. We are already seeing the signs of exhaustion in our nation, yet we continue on in a self destructive direction, shifting more of the weight to others and doing less to carry our own.

Taking Advantage

"I know there's this Democratic state senator Jon Erpenbach who said today it's not about the money, that this is really about the unions' bargaining rights, and that this is just the Republican governor taking advantage of a budget situation and trying to break the unions with this." --MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell

Amazing how the media is so quick to cry foul for the way Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has proposed dealing with a lack of revenue to fund the state.  It is my understanding that the state has a law forbidding it to run a deficit (what a novel idea!), so something has to be cut.  Gov. Walker has suggested, among other things,  unions be responsible for a larger portion of the benefits they offer their members.  This translates to the union members paying more of the cost of their benefit packages (but not all of it by a long shot...like many of us do.)

How expecting people to pay for services they receive is reason to protest just baffles me.  There may have once been a legitimate use for unions, but I dare say that the Government of the State of Wisconsin is a fair employer, and the need for a union is long gone.  The problem is that the union bosses make a career of convincing the union members who pay dues for their "services" that life without them would be bondage to the man (in this case presumably Scott Walker.)  I am sure they are not "taking advantage" of the union members though, no, that could never happen.

 If the union members are being asked to pay 12%+ of their benefits, who do you suppose is paying the remaining 88%?  Could it be the rest of the good citizens of Wisconsin?  You know, the ones who don't get tenure, bargaining powers, or the ability to refuse to work without risking their job?  Yup, those are the ones.  How come the media isn't reporting on the selfish expectations of these union members who expect the rest of the citizens to prop-up their lifestyle in tough times?

What about the Democrat cowards in the State legislature who decided to sabotage the quorum of their body by hiding instead of engaging in principled debate on the virtue of their position?  What an honest display of the character of these representatives, showing they have no respect for the laws of their state and prefer the tactics of mob rule.

Adhering to his policy of letting no crisis go to waste, President Obama has spoken out in support of unions over the rest of the citizens of Wisconsin.  I am sure he is not taking advantage of the situation in order to secure the union support he will need in 2012...no, that couldn't be it.

 There are so many layers of people taking advantage of each other it is hard to sort out.  The everyday citizen is being soaked by union members to gain benefits.  Unions are charging members dues to cover the overhead of their careers.  Democrat legislatures are taking advantage of quorum rules to overcome their lack of votes to control the legislature.  President Obama is grabbing a corner of the spotlight because, well, it is what he does.

How about the union members retain their right to bargain in the free-market like the rest of us.  They can retain the right to purchase whatever services they can afford to, like the rest of us.  They are free to refuse to work and get fired for it, like the rest of us.  They are entitled to seek employment from those who they choose and refuse to work for any they deem undesirable, like the rest of us.

We should all take advantage of the liberty provided us and despise those who encourage us to trade it for a guarantee (usually a guarantee of something they want from us, not for us.)

Big Brother comes out of the closet

So now the Obama administration says all Internet based communication services must be capable of complying with federal wiretap orders.  Just like when they passed the Patriot Act, it is for our own good.  The only problem is that we might not agree with the federal government on what is good, and when that happens the government gets to decide in a very non-public way.

I am not naive enough to think our conversations are secure if the feds want to read/listen/see them.  The thing you have to ask yourself is, why do they need it to be a law?  I suspect that buried in this one is some other "for your own good" stuff that won't be talked about.  This is likely a piece intended to connect with some other "unrelated" item like fingers joining on a full Nelson against our liberty.

Paranoid?  Maybe, but that is no worse than being one of the useful idiots.

The fact is that our federal government is WAY over powered and our liberty is being crushed under it.  We already have the fed telling us what ideas are illegal, where does it end?  When do we wake up a realize that all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others?

Same old Sad Song

Read an article today on FoxNews.com titled "GOP Battle Plan: Draw 'Line In the Sand' On Dem Spending".  When I clicked the link to check it out the page title was "GOP Aims to Erode White House Agenda".

How typical.The war cry for the GOP hopes of defeating the Democrat majority and possibly taking it themselves is, their same old tune, "We are against the Democrats!"  Wow, that is really something I can be a part of...NOT!

In case you think the Democrats have the high ground, their war cry is no better, "Imagine the worst problems we have faced....that is what you get if you elect a Republican!  It will turn back the clock!"

This is why the Libertarians and Tea Party candidates are so viable, they stand for specific principals.  Who in their right mind can support the Republican or Democrat parties?  They stand for nothing other than their own political success.

There is definitely a line being drawn in the sand alright, just not where the GOP thinks.  You know, I can think of some times when lines were drawn in the sand, so to speak.

The first would have to be when God kicked us out of the garden of Eden.  Adam and Eve didn't follow the simplest of principles, and is it me, or do they sound just like our politicians?

"Don't blame me....the woman gave it to me."
"I couldn't help it, the serpent beguiled me."

Then God kicked them out and drew a line they could not cross.

Then there was the time when Moses went up the mountain to seek God...and the Israelites decided to make a golden calf and worship that...kinda like the liberal Democrats want to worship the idol of Socialism...must be a golden Jackass.  When Moses came down and saw what idiots they were he said, ""Whoever is for the LORD, come to me."  Then they strapped on a sword and killed the others.

I do have an example that is not from the Bible (but is thought to be a myth).  Supposedly, by Col. William Barrett Travis in 1836 at a little place in Texas called the Alamo.  This story is full of analogies I don't have time to explore, but the ending is something the GOP might want to...uh....remember.

Here is a principle for voters to remember, "You reap what you sow.", don't rally behind the idiots saying "We are for being against them!"

A Civil Rights Issue

Is there nothing the NAACP can't turn into a civil rights issue?

In this article California NAACP President Alice Huffman is Quoted as saying:

"If you look at the disproportionate number of arrests that happen in our community, the law is not being applied equitably across the board.  We're targeted, which makes this a civil rights issue."

This quote was related to legalizing marijuana, which I had never considered a civil rights issue before Ms. Huffman enlightened me.  She should look at the statistics for murder, because based on them it is another civil rights issue and should also be legalized.

The main problem with this logic (and I use that term VERY loosely) is that it assume that there are equal numbers of white and blacks breaking the law, and the inequality is in the disproportionate numbers of blacks arrested.  When I took my sociology class in college my professor taught us, "Correlation is not causation".  In other words, the statistic do not tell you the cause of what they show. 

Could there be a racist conspiracy in the police force or courts?  Sure, there is no way to prove there is not one.  Could there be a cultural difference that causes fewer whites to smoke pot than blacks?  Could there be a cultural difference that accounts for gang activity?  There are many possibilities for why more blacks are arrested for possession of marijuana, yet Ms. Huffman is sure it is a civil rights issue.

I am sure that Ms. Huffman would say that all those blacks that go to court over possession should be considered innocent until proven guilty.  I would say that goes for our police and courts too.  This statistic does not prove anything in and of itself.  When Martin Luther King Jr. fought inequalities in civil rights there was proof we could see.  What a shame his efforts to insure liberty to all with disregard for ethnicity has been turned into a scheme to secure power and profit for a few (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Julian Bond, etc.)  These people foster as much racial tension as they can because the need it to move their personal agendas forward.  As obvious as this is, many are afraid to acknowledge it because of the PC stigma of racist projected on any who declare the emperor has no clothes.

A few closing points:

1. Racism should only be a legal issue when it is institutionalised in government.  One of the worst examples of this kind of racism is Affirmative action.
2. Personally I do not think that it makes sense for marijuana to be illegal.
3. NAACP is obviously a political organization whose agenda is the empowerment of it's leadership by encouraging blacks to feel like victims.

Protect Us

I just read an article (http://www.aolnews.com/health/article/your-kids-buy-e-cigs-do-you-know-whats-in-them/19633977?test=latestnews) on E-cigs.  I had never heard about them before, but apparently they are a new trend.

 

There is a lot of buzz about regulating them, like most things.  The more I read how this spokesman or that for various foundations and campaigns to protect us from ourselves wanted the government to step in and regulate these things, the more grumpy I got.

Why did I get grumpy you ask...because there are so many little campaigns trying to get us to beg the government to protect us from ourselves.  The worst ones are some that want to protect children from various things. 

I have three main problems with the "Protect us from Ourselves" crowd's push for government regulation.

1. Regulation doesn't work.  Whether it is cigarettes, R rated movies, alcohol, mortgages, prescription drugs, or anything else, it just doesn't have much impact.  Regulations are a bunch of legalistic words written on paper stored in some regulation library.  The average person wouldn't understand the meaning if they read them, and those that can understand (lawyers and politicians...pretty much one in the same these days) immediately set to work on figuring out where the loopholes are (usually put there by these same people).

2. Because regulations don't work, they become too broad in an effort to make them work.  The problem with this is it is self-defeating.  As the regulations over-reach in an attempt to be effective they interfere with activities that were not the target of the original regulation.  This can either cause certain unrelated liberties to be sacrificed (if the regulation is enforced) or further degrade it's effectiveness as people reject it (if it is not enforced).  Those who reject the regulation (gun laws are great examples) ignore them, leaving only those who would have likely exercised good sense to begin with obeying the regulation.  The net effect is usually null if not negative.

3. Regulation cost money.  The cost is hard to measure because it is not just the cost of the bureaucracy it creates (which is usually significant and endless), but also the cost on the free market and the burden of obedience.  Having worked for a top 10 mortgage company I can tell you that the cost to mortgage comapanies related to compliance with regulations is huge.  All that cost impact dividends to investors, inflates the cost of services to customers, and reduces the number of employees the company can afford to have.

So why do we have so many regulations if they are such a bad idea?  Fear and the desire to control others instead of convincing them to change behavior with reason.  Somewhere along the way the idea that our government was responsible for making life fair for all meant forcing certain behaviors on certain citizens.  It works something like this:

1. I think drinking alcohol is bad, so I don't drink it. 
2. I see a drunk and don't like how I feel when I see a drunk. 
3. I tell the drunk that drinking alcohol is a bad idea. 
4. The drunk ignores me and drinks anyway.
5. I work with other who are like minded to educate all on the evils of alcohol.
6. The drunk ignores me and drinks anyway.
7. We boycott store that sell alcohol.
8. Some stores stop selling alcohol.
9. The stores that do sell it have greater profits on alcohol because of less competition.
10. The drunk ignores me and drinks anyway.
11. We go to the government to have alcohol regulated (abolition in this case).
12. Politicians resist (the like a good drink every now and then).
13. We remind them that they will need to re-elected (and we vote, but the drunk won't).
14. Politicians protect their careers by passing a law regulating alcohol.
15. Gangsters bootleg alcohol and sell it on the black market making huge profits.
16. The drunk ignores me and drinks anyway.

 Whether it is alcohol, guns, cigarettes, R rated movies, prescription drugs, alternative medical treatment, or most anything else, regulation is not effective.  In the end regulation serves to increase the size and expense of our bloated government while needlessly reducing the liberties of people who would have acted responsible in the first place.

 

Now that regulation has turned into a revenue generating system for the government it will be hard to remove.  Take driving for instance.  The constitution says we have a right to free travel, but some thought to regulate that free travel in many ways.  Now the government has a revenue stream from the requirement to have a drivers license in order to drive and speed limit regulations.  This is how we have gotten so many layers of regulation.

 

The worst part is how it has changed the way we think.  Our founding fathers did not risk everything for the right to have the government regulate every aspect of our lives.  Just the opposite is true, they risked all to remove regulation and establish personal liberty.  It is true that for there to be civilization, there must be some sacrifice of absolute personal liberty, but if you read the writings of our founding fathers they warn of the certain doom of personal liberty by taking the very path we have chosen.  Regulation removes the larger part of personal responsibility and give it, along with the attached liberty, to the government.  This has gone on long enough that we expect the government to limit our choices for our own good.  Those who have no self-control or discipline may think this beneficial, but it is a theft of liberty, and nothing more, to those of us who would be responsible for ourselves. 

CONTENT WARNING

One of the reasons I have not posted often is that it takes time to write, edit, and spell check a post. In the past I have tried to offer links to sources and supporting info. I will not be doing this anymore, I will be posting "off the cuff", so be warned I am a terrible speller and if I get typing fast enough I can be pretty creative with sentence structure, tense, and pronouns.


Soooo....her we go.

IRS - Irritating Revenue Scheme

I just spent over 2 hours on hold, over 2 days, to talk to a guy for less than 5 minutes. Yes, I had to press 1 to hear the menus in English instead of Spanish. Yes, I had to enter in information to speed things up (um, wow, how much slower could they have been?) only to be asked all the same questions by the person I was connected to (50% of my 5 minute call right there).

Once we established I was who I said I was, by asking me questions anyone who has done business with me over the last few years could answer, it took all of 2 minutes for IRS employee number 125488596 to tell me, "I tried to do that, but the computer won't let me." Then IRS employee number 125488596 told me I could write a letter and ask for my penalties to be waived. When asked if I would incur further penalties and interest while writing to them and waiting for an answer, IRS employee number 125488596 didn't even have to put me on hold to answer, "Yes." How efficient. IRS employee number 125488596 didn't leave it at that though, because our government had spent gobs of money to send him to sensitivity training, so he went the extra mile and said, "It's only $212 dollars. It's not like it's a lot." This helped me feel so much better. I guess IRS employee number 125488596 makes so much that he can light his cigars with $212, but that is an amount that actually matters to me...mostly because I earned it.

Think about it this way...

In 2003 there were 5,890,821 Corp. Tax Returns filed. If 50% of them were assessed a $212 penalty, that would be $624,427,026, pocket change to the IRS. My penalty was pretty small though (and only based on 3 months), what if large companies had annual penalties of say $5000, maybe an additional 20% of those corp. filings. That would be an additional $5,890,821,000 for a total of $6,515,248,026, but come on, it's not like that is a lot! This is just penalties we are talking about here, not the actual tax burden. I kind of wonder how many paid penalties above $5000, you know, the high rollers like IRS employee number 125488596. Don't think many folks paid more? Well in 2003 38 taxpayers paid a total of $126,000 because the IRS didn't like them seeking judicial review (allowable according to The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998). One of those 38 received a penalty of over $14,000 for daring to object and seek judicial review (the judge actually said they "should have known better").

But wait, there's more!

You know the IRS is serious about having a high level of performance for it's customers...what?...oh, you didn't realize you were a customer?...yes, while on hold for over 2 hours I heard many times how they were helping other "customers"...so anyway, they want to provide us such excellent service that they wanted to upgrade their computer systems. Now before you get excited about the budget overruns, you have to understand that they only started with $1.7 billion to get them through 2004. In fact, Paul Cofoni VP at Computer Sciences Corp. said, “[during] my 30 years of working in the technology field, I have never encountered any program of the size and complexity as the business systems modernization program at the IRS". Besides, they only went over the budget by a pesky $290,000,000, that is only 1,450,000 $200 penalties, and IRS employee number 125488596 can tell you that is all in a good days work.

It may be a good idea to refocus the IRS on finding some of the money we have already earned and given the Federal Government. The DoD reported $1.1 trillion missing in FY 2000 alone (video), I mean really, that is not exactly looking for a needle in a haystack.

Hereditary Bondage

"Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them." Thomas Jefferson

Mixed Message

I read an article on FoxNews.com this morning on how recipients of the BP oil spill money may have to pay taxes on it. As is to be expected when a disaster of this proportion occurs, emotions are high and the politicians are using them to further their agenda (never waste a crisis, right?). This kind of issue typically turns in to a tangled mess via the perfect storm of victims pleading for help, media sensationalism to grab ratings, and politicians trying to channel energy into popularity increases and maneuvering room for their greater plans.

Let's look at them one at a time.

"If they're going to pay you a lump sum, like for a year, then bam, take the taxes out of the check," said Pellegal, of Boothville, La. "But a little bit at a time, they shouldn't."

There are many individuals who will be impacted by the oil spill. All those you would think of (and the media is focused on), such as oil workers, shrimpers, and deep sea fishing charters, and many more you would not think of. I am not indifferent to this, but neither am I consumed by it. We all have to be aware of our vulnerabilities and WE should be responsible for our own preparedness. If you live along the Mississippi, you need to be prepared for the likelihood of floods. If you live in the Midwest's Tornado Alley, you should prepare for tornados. Upstate New York, heavy snow. California, earth quakes. Gulf coast, hurricanes, and obviously oil spills. It is a simple concept, yet so many don't get it. Why don't they get it? That is a long story, but basically they have been taught to not get it for generations now. We have been taught to make decisions about our life assuming that the future will be what we want it to be. Good examples of this idea and the potential harm of subscribing to it are seen all the time if you look (bankruptcy, the mortgage crisis, the dot com bubble, social security, most debt). The only problem is how we are encouraged to interpret what we see when we look, which brings us to the media and the politicians (not much difference anymore).

President Barack Obama said BP would create a $20 billion disaster fund and provide another $100 million for oil workers who lose their jobs because of the six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

The media wants a scoop, a hook, a headline, an exclusive, something to make you choose them over their competitors. This isn't all bad, I am a big fan of competition, but I am a bigger fan of not being a fool, and anyone who watches ANY of the media and accepts it as fact is a fool (yes, that includes FoxNews). The media wants you to accept them as an exclusive source of the truth, but it is rarely so. I don't claim to know why it is so, but these days the media seems to be nothing but progressive liberals. The media can still ask the hard questions, they do it all the time for conservatives (just like they should), but they have forgotten how to ask a progressive liberal a hard question (they are too busy experiencing a thrill up their leg I guess). This wouldn't be so bad except that the masses of dumbed down "useful idiots" believe everything they see on TV, then they turn around and regurgitate it as if they figured something out. Question the benefit of their favorite entitlement and they will quickly brand you with one of the slurs taught to them by the media. Entitlement mentality is the polar opposite of being responsible for yourself, which brings us to the politicians.

"I haven't even thought about taxes. Wow. That makes me mad," said Edwards, who has one child in college and another in high school. "I'm already losing money, and now I've got to figure out how to hold back money to pay taxes?"

Now I know what you are probably thinking, progressives are Democrats and conservatives are Republicans, but that is just not so. Both parties have done their share of increasing the public addiction to the opiate of entitlements. Many Republicans will pay lip service to reducing entitlements, but when faced with the prospect of an electorate irate from withdraw, they soon abandon the notion in favor of their own, "more restrained" entitlements. This is one good reason for strict term limits, to help end the cycle of "re-elect me so I can give you even more!" That must be why they can't believe that their progressive saviors want their cut of the BP payments, but this is just too big of a win to let them keep it when there is SO MUCH MORE the progressives need to fund. Not to worry, according to the article, the same happened in 2007 for folks who received money after Katrina. Once the complaining got loud enough congress disallowed the tax, so crank up that temper tantrum about how unfair it is to pay taxes on your...err...income.

This guy, who is he? Where did he come from?

In response to his successful bid to win the nomination to run for a South Carolina Senate seat, many are suggesting Alvin Greene should be disqualified.

Why do they want him disqualified? Well, the most sited reason is he is out of bail after being charged with felony obscenity, but he has not been proven guilty. Don't misunderstand what I am saying, when I hear him interviewed, I have no reason to think he will do a good job as South Carolina's Senator, but I feel that way about many seated Senators. Furthermore, soliciting women, or for that matter men, by Senators, or even sitting Presidents, is hardly a rare event. I am not excusing immoral behavior, if he did what he is accused of I hope he is convicted and sentenced.

"He's been paid to stay in it, by somebody," Clyburn said. "I just think this is a ploy by someone to dishonor and embarrass the Democratic Party."

The difference between Mr. Greene and many others who have "served" in federal government, is class, not behavior. I have no doubt that were Mr. Greene a rich lawyer, doctor, or businessman who was presumed to have the ability to pull more federal money into the state or expand the Democrat parties influence, he would be defended by the very people who now attack him now (with the exception of Camille McCoy, the 19-year-old chemistry student at the University of South Carolina who reported him to the police). Mr. Greene does not come from the right class though, he is unemployed, he does not inspire confidence, and he doesn't appear to have a grasp on the issues.

"Alvin Greene has made himself an issue by running for office." - Susan McCoy (mother of the student Alvin Greene is accused of harassing)

I in no way support Alvin Greene. I do support our system of electing our representatives and the responsibility that accompanies it. It is interesting that now, after defeating the presumptive favorite of the Democrat party Vic Rawl ( a state legislator and former judge), cries for Mr. Greene's withdraw and federal investigations abound. The fact is that the Democrat party has nobody to blame but themselves in this, after all, it was their primary, and they approved Mr. Greene's application to participate. Registered Democrat voters decided to vote for Mr. Greene, so he ought to be their candidate no matter how distasteful the party higher-ups find it.

Just in case you think I feel this way because I like the idea of an easy victory for Mr. Greene's Republican opponent, let me clarify. I find it completely plausible that the same situation could happen in a Republican primary, and if it did, I would feel no different. Both parties have become focused on political strategy at the expense of principled service. Our elected representatives are to lead via public service, not attempt to dominate by political maneuvers and media misinformation. I am willing to abide the occasional Alvin Greene in order to ensure that all citizens, regardless of class, have access to serving as elected officials.

Too busy and depressed to write

I have been too busy and dpressed to write. Busy is good, depression will need to be overcome.

Until later.

Notions of Fairness

Recently President Barack Hussein Obama had the following to say about recent legislation signed into law in Arizona:

"That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe,"

What horrible unfair thing are they doing that will destroy the trust between communities and the police?  They will require people in Arizona to be legally in the country.  The police will have to question people on the legality of their immigration status if there is reason to believe they may not be here legally.  So I am wondering what cherished American notion we are undermining.  It seems more likely to me that Obama seeks to undermine the cherished notions of liberty and personal responsibility in whatever remote corners of America they still exist in.

In addition to making his arrogant remarks, President Barack Hussein Obama has the Justice Department examining it to see if it's legal.  I wonder how the legality of this will be determined since our president intends to Fundamentally Transform America, the constitution, you know, that status quo document written by a bunch of old white guys, certainly can't be used.  What we really need is a word from on high from Mr. Hope and Change himself. 

Sorry, the irony took me for a second there.

The really insane thing is that Arizona law ONLY requires they be here legally according to current US immigration law.  How unfair of them.

If anyone is misguided and suffering from irresponsibility it is the federal government.  How often do I say the federal government SHOULD be doing something, should be involved, IS responsible for something?  Immigration and border security happens to be one of those things, but our President thinks it is unfair to require people enter our country according to our established immigration law.  The things the federal government has no business regulating, outlawing, or providing, Obama insists on.  One of the few things our federal government SHOULD do and, guess what, Obama thinks it is bad.

Perhaps he needs all these people to stay so he can grant them amnesty, make them citizens, promise them a bunch of entitlements, all just in time for 2010 elections.  The thing is, Arizona is also working on a law requiring all presidential candidates to show proof of US birth, so maybe it is actually good for Obama if Arizona cracks down...all those illegal immigrants will relocate and be able to vote for him in other states.

President Obama has offered to talk unconditionally

President Obama has offered to talk unconditionally...with Iran, but Israel is a different story.

This month Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with President Barack Hussein Obama.  For once our President didn't bow to the foreign leader, in fact, they didn't even have a photo op for reporters.

Apparently after Obama failed to secure a written promise from Israel to make concessions on settlements, he just walked out of the meeting.  Something tells me that is a little different than how he would treat Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the same situation...or Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz (who received both a bow and a photo op)...or the Japanese Emperor Akihito (also received a bow)..or even Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio (she also got a bow).  As he was leaving Obama said that the PM could continue to talk to his advisors and get back to him when he was ready to forget about the settlements.  Obama then excused himself from dining with Netanyahu and didn't even give him an iPod preloaded with Obama's Greatest Hits or a DVD set of American films.

What is the cause of this ridiculous treatment?  Obama is throwing a hissy fit because Israel announced new settlements in east Jerusalem earlier this month when VP Joe "this is a big #$%ing deal" Biden was visiting.  Biden on the other hand most likely thanked the PM for distracting the press from headlining whatever stupid thing he said while there.

So what is the moral of the story?  Don't stand in the way of Obama's historical Presidency.  Netanyahu must have forgotten that Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize for...for...well...for nothing really, but that is the point, this could have been proof that Obama is going to bring peace to the middle east.  A word of advice to our other allies, just remember, it is all about Obama.

Finally something I agree with Obama about!

The American people want to know if it’s still possible for Washington to look out for these interests, for their future. So what they’re looking for is some courage. They’re waiting for us to act. They’re waiting for us to lead. They don’t want us putting our finger out to the wind. They don’t want us reading polls. They want us to look and see what is the best thing for America, and then do what’s right. And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership. - Barack Hussein Obama

Our leaders should be governing by polls, protests, and re-election hopes.  We should elect our politicians based on their professed, and hopefully demonstrated, principles.  They should then govern by those same principles.  Polls and protests are good for drawing the attention of our leaders to a particular issue, but should not override the principles held by the leader.  I am tired of the pandering of politicians to whatever cause or special interest they feel empowers them at the moment, only to switch their position when the wind changes (I was for it before I was against it).  I believe Obama has done this pretty well.

The problem is that, no matter what he reads us from his teleprompter, Obama's principles are founded in socialism and self interest.  He is an arrogant elitist who believes that he is being the public servant his office is supposed to be by forcing his radical agenda on us for our own good.  He vacillates between pity and annoyance at our ignorance.

In January 2009 Rush Limbaugh was criticized for stating that he hoped the soon to be President Barack Hussein Obama would fail.  Many couldn't believe that Rush would hope for such a thing, but Rush saw that Obama would lead from his principles, principles of radical socialism.  Since Rush's principles are diametrically opposed to Obama's, there is no shame in hoping Obama would fail, anything else would not make sense.

The thing that really bothers me are the many politicians (from all parties) that have only one principle, "Look out for number one."  Many have wondered if Obama is politically suicidal by pushing for National Health-Care and other elements of his socialist agenda, but I don't believe that is the case.  Obama pursues his principles, polls and popularity be damned.  We need some liberty minded leaders with this same principled tenacity.

They Want To Control Us...big surprise

Rep. John Dingle says it was difficult to design the health-care bill to be able to control us.

Defenders of minorities

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." --author and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

2010 Census

So I open the 2010 Census, look at the questions and think, "Why are they asking me all these questions?"

How many people live in my home...that I get...used to decide on congressional districting.

The second question, "Were there any additional people staying here April 1, 2010 that you did not include in Question 1?"  At first I figured they thought that somebody might have answered with "-1" for question 1 as an April Fools joke or not counted their cyclops inbred daughter in the basement.  If the second scenario is you, I think there is a section of the new health-care bill that will pay for special cyclops eye glasses.  So anyway, after I called the help number on the back and pressed 1 for English, they told me neither of my ideas were right, but the health-care bill does cover contact lenses for inbred cyclops (the fact that they only need one contact was seen as cost savings that helped justify the bill).

So then they move on to a question about whether your home is a house, apartment, or a mobile home.  This got me thinking again (scary huh?), when they say mobile home, are they talking about a Winnebago, a singlewide, or maybe a cardboard box in a shopping cart?  Either way I don't see why the government needs to know.  I didn't call the help line about this one.

Next they asked for my telephone number so they can call me if they don't understand my answers.  I don't see why that would be necessary.  Anyone reading this can see how thorough I am in my communication, why would they need to call me?

Now here is where it gets complicated.  They ask seven questions about every person in the home.  In my home this is a big deal because there are seven of us, so that makes their estimate of "10 minutes to complete, including the time for reviewing the instructions and answers." completely unrealistic for me not even counting the call about the cyclops (talk about something they couldn't understand).

Here are the remaining questions:

5. Name (seems like it should have been first to me)
6. Sex (as in male or female)
7. Age and date of birth (seems redundant)
8. Are you Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?
9. Race (uh...human last time I checked)
10. Do you sometimes stay somewhere else (doesn't everybody?  I mean, unless you are an inbred cyclops)

All kidding aside, questions 6 through 10 seem totally inappropriate for the government to be asking.  The census is about determining population based representation (or at least it should be).  I know, I know, I have seen the ads that talk about roads, bridges, and hospitols being based on census numbers.  That is the carrot.  The stick is up to a $5000.00 fine if you don't answer all the questions. 

I am pretty sure that the data is used to qualify areas for their "fair share" of federal funding for projects.  I would love to know why they are so concerned with race, Hispanic/Latino roots, and sex of citizens.

This is what change looks like

"The United States Congress finally declared that America's workers and America's families and small businesses deserve the security of knowing that here in this country neither illness nor accident should endanger the dreams they worked a lifetime to achieve." - Barack Hussein Obama

This sounds like an infomercial:

"Yes, that's right folks, you dream it and the US federal government will make sure that nothing, thats right, NOTHING, interferes with your dream.  No medical insurance?  We have you covered.  No money?  No problem, we will just make more and give it to you.  The responsibility of raising that child you didn't plan on getting you down?  We can make it all go away AND it is covered in your new mandatory Health-Care.  Your dreams WILL HAPPEN, and all you have to do is VOTE US IN, we will do the rest AT NO COST TO YOU!"

This would make a great SNL skit, but as reality it is not funny.

It is bad enough that the government has taken even more of our liberty in the guise of yet another "just the right thing to do.", but forcing all people participate is such a blatant revocation of our unalienable Rights staggers the mind.  The health-care legislation is bad, but that is not the story here.  The real story is how we are being forced to make choices on health-care that the government approves of.  I am wondering, what, exactly, the federal government can't tell us to do now. 

Can the government pass the Organic Vegetarian Diet bill?  Can it require that my family eat a strict vegetarian diet of organic food?  You could make a case that it would benefit my family, so why would it be wrong?  The Fed (pun intended) could have programs for helping those who can't afford organic food and fine those who refuse to change to the government approved diet (you know, because we all pay the bill when those meat eating savages have health issues).

Colon cancer is a big issue, lots of folks die because of it.  Maybe we need a federally mandated colon cleanse that all comrades...errr...I mean citizens have to use every 3 months.  How could that be wrong, I mean it helps people, right?  We could do a test run in Congress, because you know they are full of....uh...well because we know how hard they work on our behalf.

All joking aside, the character of our nation, this grand experiment in liberty, is in peril.  The cancer of entitlement will metastasize soon and invade every vital organ in our nation.  Now is the time for us to rescue the liberty of our children and grandchildren.  We will already bare the shame of allowing our comfort and complacency to lull us into a stupor of inaction, but we can also be known as the generation that woke up just in time.  Tyrants abhor a vacuum of power and fill it with their own will if we let them.  We still have the opportunity to prove that free men can, and should, rule themselves.