The Obama administration has come completely unhinged in trying to sell their “jobs plan.” In the latest of a long line of embarrassing gaffes, Vice President Joe Biden put forth the ridiculous notion that if Republicans don’t support Obama’s “jobs plan,” then they must want to see more people raped and murdered.
In a speech to public sector workers, Biden said “I wish they (Republicans) had some notion of what it was like to be on the other side of a gun, or [to have] a 200-pound man standing over you, telling you to submit.”
Aside from the disgusting insensitivity of this remark, I have news for Mr. Biden; the police cannot completely prevent crime, they can only respond to it. To make his ludicrous point, Biden cited erroneous statistics about rising violent crime rates which the Associated Press later debunked.
Biden’s argument would have been better used to contend that citizens should practice their second amendment rights and arm themselves. Studies do show that where the citizenry is armed, less violent crime takes place.
Even worse for the administration, it turns out that the bill in question only allocates $5 billion out of $35 billion for additional law enforcement personnel with the rest going mostly to teachers unions. If there were an outbreak of rape and murder in America, what message does allotting only $5 billion to law enforcement send about a commitment to addressing the matter?
It’s not just the Obama administration that is saying crazy things. Democrat leadership appears to be showing signs of mental fatigue as well. On the Senate floor last week, Senate Leader Harry Reid said, “It is very clear that private sector jobs are doing just fine. It’s the public sector (Government) jobs where we have lost huge numbers.” Really Harry, the private sector is doing just fine? Tell that to the 26 million unemployed or underemployed Americans.
The economic policies of the left have been exposed for the fraud that they are. The Keynesian economic model has fallen apart. Any money that the government has to stimulate the economy must first be pulled out of the economy.
The problem for the Democrats has become how do you defend the indefensible? You can’t. All you can do is create a distraction, hence the increasingly vapid rhetoric.
The economy is basically business transactions that take place between Americans every day. When the economy is not making those transactions, you must examine why. A quick look at Obama’s economic policies will expose the culprit.
Every major initiative of this administration has been tilted toward either taking more money from business through increased taxation, or telling a business what they can or cannot do through costly regulation. This philosophy inevitably leads to making business transactions less profitable, which in turn leads to lost jobs.
Under the Obama administration, bureaucrats, not elected officials, are now enacting more than 200 regulations per year that cost more than $100 million dollars for businesses to comply with. How many years can such practices continue before there is no money left to be made in business at all?
After watching the left’s recent collective nervous breakdown over the alleged “vitriolic” rhetoric of the right, I can’t help but laugh at the Democrats now accusing Republicans of actually cheering on rape and murder.
On the one hand it’s pathetic, but on the other, it signals the demise of radical left wing ideology in America. An ideology based solely on selfishness and envy and enacted through the forced redistribution of private property.
When you cannot defend your intellectual positions without depicting your ideological opponent pushing Grandma off a cliff in a wheelchair or cheering for more murder, you have most likely lost the debate.
The sooner we can get these four years of economic hell over with the better. November 2012 can’t come soon enough for me.
“Fairness” apparently becomes hip only when it benefits the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd, which promotes a philosophy of wealth distribution while shunning gainful employment, respect for property and proper hygiene.
What if the OWS (Offering Worthless Shenanigans) gang knew about the corporate scam run by teachers’ unions in Kentucky? Included among the more than 1,700 organizations participating in the commonwealth’s ailing public pension system are private – private – organizations, like the Kentucky Education Association, the state’s teachers’ union.
Not that I’m suggesting it, but could such information lead to an “Occupy the KEA” event in Frankfort? After all, the teachers’ union is affiliated with one of the nation’s largest lobbying organizations that donate more to political candidates than many of those big, greedy corporations.
A new Bluegrass Institute policy brief – the first in a series of releases on the state’s public pension systems – reveals that KEA staff members with prior involvement in a pension plan can join the Kentucky Teachers’ Retirement System. The amount they receive when they retire and begin collecting their pensions hinges on their highest-paid years.
If a teacher made more as, say, the KEA president for a few years than during her lower-paid years in the classroom, she gets a pension based on the higher-paid years.
That doesn’t strike me as fair, unless your fairness formula also includes allowing employees in a private union cozy with politicians to mooch off taxpayers.
The Education Intelligence Agency reports that during the 2008 presidential election cycle, the nation’s two largest teachers’ unions — the National Education Association, of which the KEA is an affiliated chapter, and the American Federation of Teachers — outspent AT&T, Goldman Sachs, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Microsoft Corp., General Electric Co., Chevron Corp., Pfizer Inc., Morgan Stanley, Lockheed Martin Corp., FedEx, The Boeing Company, Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., Exxon Mobil Corp., Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and the Walt Disney Corp. combined.
Despite their goofy rhetoric and signs, “the occupiers” don’t seem interested in spreading the love around. At the very least, consistency isn’t their strong suit. Otherwise, they would raise a stink about the wealth, power and privilege exerted by private teachers’ unions surfeiting at public-pension spreads.
Wealth-redistributing groupies might be more interested in an “Occupy Commonwealth Credit Union” day. I might even show up for that one — considering the Frankfort-based credit union has 365 members in the Kentucky Retirement Systems.
Recently, the Lexington Herald-Leader reported that the “legislature amended state law in 1992 to allow the credit union to join KRS because its customers are government employees.”
Such reasoning demands that if employees at a private credit union with assets of $900 million can stuff themselves on the dwindling amount of slop in Kentucky’s public pension trough, then so can a greeter dispensing shopping carts at Frankfort’s Wal-Mart. No doubt, many of that store’s customers also are government employees.
Occupy. Occupy. Occupy.
Lots of love has been spread around in the Kentucky Retirement System, which has seen a 39-percent increase in the number of participants guaranteed a lifetime pension since 2000.
The number of Kentuckians on the pension dole is now nearly 319,000 – the equivalent of one in every 10 Kentucky adults. This benefit creep has occurred even as our unfunded pension liability has grown from $960 million in 2000 to more than $30 billion today.
It’s appalling enough that, with the exception of some tinkering around the edges of the problem in recent years, Frankfort’s political leadership has pushed the pension crisis to the side. But to continue to dig the hole deeper by allowing private entities to get a piece of the taxpayer funded pension pie?
Now, that’s patently unfair to future generations of Kentuckians who will pay the bill.
Let me offer this olive branch to my OWS friends. We agree with you that bailing out the banks was a bad idea, and that it was made even worse when some banks continued to give huge bonuses to their management rather than pay the taxpayers back. That’s a big part of why the Tea Party got started. We were reacting to the fact that the Government was bailing out failing businesses at the expense of real taxpayers.
It was unfair of one protester, who according to the Associated Press said:
We did do something, we changed Congress. In less than two years, a grass roots movement centered on liberty reacted to multiple acts of bad government. As Congress continued to fail to uphold its duty, the movement grew and in November of last year, we sent a bunch of them home. And in November of next year, we’re prepared to send some more of them to the unemployment line. You have failed to recognize that we sent some good people to Washington last time.
We realize that this will take time, but we also realize that we have a system of government that works for all of us and that rather than overthrowing that system, rather than lashing out in anger at private individuals or companies, rather than camping out in public parks and going for days on end un-showered, we redressed our grievances directly with our elected officials.
But since we have offered this agreement with you about what makes us all angry – the abuse of tax dollars to benifit a few at the exense of the many - what we ask from you in return is that you admit that it was government who gave the banks the bailouts.
Ironically, for all of the anger that you are directing at Wall Street Bankers, had the government done the right thing and let those banks fail, many of the very same “rich” that you love to hate, would be jobless as a result of their own failures. I’m sure that’s not a scenario you would find unacceptable is it?
It shouldn’t be, and its not for us either.
Freedom is responsibility, which means, rich or poor, you take responsibility for your life. It means that we all have the freedom to chase our dreams, but we must also realize that not all dreams come true. It means that when we fall down we get back up, we push on, and we come up with the next great idea.
If this seems like a fantasy statement, it’s not. Americans have been doing it for centuries. Some have succeeded, many have failed, but all were free. Free to fail and start again. Free to succeed.
What we should all be demanding is that government become less involved in business, not more. Let bad ideas lose and good ideas win. Celebrate justice for bad people and liberty for those who choose to do the right thing.
I guess the big difference between us is that when we see someone successful, we say to ourselves, “that’s awesome. Good for them that will be me someday.” When you see someone successful, you wonder who they stole it from. We find success stories inspiring while you seem to see them as evidence of a crime.
If you want to talk specifics about corporate influence on government, you must be willing to admit government influence on the corporate.
You’ve created a boogie man in business, yet its businesses that made your mac book and I-phone, upon which you utilize the businesses that created Facebook and twitter to organize your protests against business.
You claim you want a level playing field, but what you really want is to change the rules.
I’m sure that many of you will not even read this far into this post, but should choose to do so let me leave you with this final point. It was one of the greatest liberals of all time (classical variety), Thomas Jefferson, who said, “A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take everything you have.” Here’s a modern day interpretation for you: A government big enough to make your life good, is a government big enough to make it a living hell.
Herman Cain did an extensive interview with the Wall Street Journal, and his comment about the Occupy Wall Street protesters has the left-wing media literally peeing themselves. The fact that a Presidential candidate might actually pull the “personal responsibility” card? Wow…they can’t wait to bash him over the head with this. (Skip ahead to about 9:40 for the big stuff)
I actually agree with what he said, to a degree. I think there are people out there who certainly lost their job through no fault of their own. The recession has claimed many victims. But on the whole, our circumstances are the sum total of the decisions we make in life. Freedom means loving it when the decisions pay off, and toughing it out when they don’t. I’ve been in both positions personally, and I’m sure I’ll be there again.
This probably will be Democrat soundbite gold for the next few weeks, and it may even fuel the fire of the OWS movement for a bit. But in the end, I give Herman Cain points for being straight forward, honest, and decidedly NOT PC…check out the whole vid for a wide ranging interview that gives a good overall sense of the candidate.
The “Occupy Wall Street Protests are spreading, and they’ve reached Lexington. Hundreds of people across the country have been gathering in front of banks and financial centers to protest…er, um, something. That’s the problem; no one really knows exactly what they are protesting. Even the Associated Press profiled them and came to the conclusion that they don’t really know what it is they are angry about – just that they are angry.
I stopped by the protest in Lexington on its first day. I talked to four different people and none of them could articulate exactly what they wanted to see accomplished. One told me to look it up on twitter or their Facebook page.
When you find the organizers of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, they will tell you that their enemy is Capitalism. They hate it. They seem to think that a government command and control economy will work better. Little do they know what they are asking for?
The problem is that their anger is misdirected. While many on Wall Street did benefit from government bailouts, it would do us well to remember who gave it to them. I call it crony capitalism, and it has ruined real Capitalism.
As I tried explaining to some of the protestors here in Lexington, Capitalism was never supposed to be in partnership with government – that’s how it got screwed up. The problem isn’t Capitalism, its Government meddling. Their eyes glazed over, they went back to beating their bongo drums and one of them called me a “typical Republican.”
They seemed blissfully unaware of the fact that GE, who’s CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, sits on Obama’s jobs advisory board, made $14 billion dollars in profits last year and paid nearly zero taxes while shipping jobs to China. They were completely ignorant of the fact that Solyndra, the failed California Solar Panel company which received $535 million dollars in stimulus money, was packed with high level Obama fund raising bundlers. They had no idea that the Obama administration pushed for approval of the loan despite warnings that the company was not on solid ground.
The list of green companies and financial companies tied to the Obama administration that received bailout or stimulus cash is endless, yet if you ask one of these protestors to pinpoint their anger they will start mumbling something about the Bush administration.
To be fair, Republicans do deserve a great deal of the blame. In some ways, they paved the road that President Obama is driving on. I’ll never forget the chill that went up my spine when President Bush stood before the cameras after the TARP bailouts and said “I’ve given up on my free market principles to save the free market.”
Capitalism is not rocket science. It’s simply the free exchange of goods among willing parties. Profit is the goal, jobs and economic growth is the guaranteed byproduct.
Capitalism isn’t greed. It’s not an emotion. It is the economic system that has improved more lives around the world than any other in history. It relies solely on initiative, ingenuity and individuals. Only when government – Republican or Democrat – tries to control it, to adapt it, or re-engineer it, does it get messed up.
If only the “Occupy Wall Street” protestors knew that the system of government they are advocating doesn’t trust them and doesn’t think they are capable of managing their own lives. If only they knew that it’s the very system that led to the problems they are angry about.
Capitalism on the other hand, believe it or not, believes in them and their individual potential. It knows what they could achieve if they put their mind to it. And it’s waiting for them and for all of us, to bring us wealth and prosperity again – if we let it.
Last week, President Obama decided to make an aging bridge connecting Kentucky and Ohio the poster child for his second stimulus package. With all of the pomposity that typically accompanies an Obama campaign event, he proclaimed himself a “warrior for the middle class” while standing in front of the Brent Spence Bridge in Cincinnati. Pounding his fist on the podium, for what felt like the thousandth time he declared, “Tell congress to pass this bill!”
The Bill he was referring to is the “American Jobs Act,” which ironically his own party doesn’t even want to touch with a ten foot pole. That’s because it’s basically “Stimulus 2.0,” a half priced version of the first failed stimulus program.
The hilarious part about all of this political theatre is that the bridge, upon which the President was standing, wouldn’t actually benefit from the “American Jobs Act.” It’s actually in good repair and the Ohio Department of Transportation is estimating that it will remain in operation for at least another 20 years.
The problem with the Brent Spence Bridge isn’t that it’s falling apart; it’s that it isn’t big enough to handle the traffic flow – it was designed to handle 80,000 cars daily but is now handling about 120,000. A project is already on the books, slated to start in 2013, that will build an entirely new bridge to help with the extra traffic capacity while leaving the Brent Spence in operation. But no real job creation will actually take place until 2015.
Claiming the need to “put people to work right away,” Obama is using a bridge that is not in disrepair, to tout a spending package that won’t fund the project that won’t start until 2013.
The real question the American people should be asking President Obama and every other politician that is rambling on about our “ailing infrastructure,” is what has happened to the 18.5 cents a gallon in federal gas taxes that we pay? That money is supposed to be specifically allocated to the construction and upkeep of our federal transportation system. The fact that they are coming to us now asking for more money should make us righteously indignant.
President Obama has his priorities wrong. He’s travelling the country, deliberately trying to create a class war with a plan that will do absolutely nothing to help those he claims to be fighting for.
Americans need jobs. Jobs are a happy byproduct of commerce. Commerce has slowed to a crawl because the President has embarked upon the most anti-business agenda in modern history.
His administration has enacted over 400 new regulations that are strangling businesses of every size and costing the economy billions of dollars. That’s not counting the number of would-be startups that are simply not bothering. Combine that with the fact that America currently has the second highest corporate tax rate in the developed world while the President wants to make it the highest and it is no wonder that our economy is poised on the brink of the abyss.
Why would any business want to invest in a climate like this? Any sign of profit will get you demonized, regulated or investigated right out of business. Just ask an oil rig worker or the Gibson Guitar company.
The President’s response to our current employment crisis is to demonize the job creators and demand more government spending. If the first stimulus package worked so well, why would we need another one so soon? And if it didn’t work, then why would we try it again?
Obama is more focused on creating his entitlement utopia than seriously dealing with the economy.
After blasting Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman for a couple of hours on my show yesterday, it appears the part of my program that garnered the most significant interest was when I was critical of some of Ron Paul’s positions on foriegn policy.
For the record, I have deep respect for Ron Paul and agree with him on about 90% of his platform. I’m glad he’s been in the race but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with everything he says. But I’ll let you be the judge. Follow the link to the original story to see video and hear audio links. I believe I’ve been extraordinarily fair with all of the candidates, judging them equally harshly when I disagree and praising them when I agree. Did I cross the line?
Yesterday I was in the car listening to Leland Conway, and he was discussing the debate. Getting off work I only heard the last half hour or so, so I don’t know how the treatment was of the other candidates; however, sadly his treatment of Ron Paul was typical. He started off praising and giving accolades to Paul for his performance in the debate, I thought good, too good to be true, I knew there was a “but” and boy was it a big one. The show ended with Leland pretty much telling everyone that Ron Paul wants to apologize to the Islamic World for America, that he is naive and wears a tin foil hat when it comes to Al-Qaeda and the “War on Terror” (a tactic by the way, how do you declare war on a tactic…oh wait we have not even done that) and at one point informed us that Paul categorically lied. Thus all the praise for Paul was undone all in the name of I am sure appearing to be “Fair and Balanced.”
So let’s examine the last segment in his show. Here is the link to Leland’s 3rd hour (the 5PM Hour) starting at about the 35:35 mark. This is where he makes his tin foil hat comment, then later eludes after he actually agrees some more with him, that Ron Paul thinks we should apologize to the Islamic world for our actions, when in fact he says nothing of the sort. He actually says we need to have wisdom about how our foreign policy affects things, which Leland then agrees with still. In fact Ron Paul consistently votes against those feel good apology resolutions that the Libs in D.C. think up. So commentary not reflecting the reality of what happened, what was said or what Ron Paul believes.
Then at the 39:10 mark Leland says that Ron Paul misunderstands Al-Qaeda’s purpose. So what is Al-Qaeda’s purpose? Well it seems that there are several reasons: The sanctions against Iraq, troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, and the United States support for Israel. You don’t have to believe these things are right or wrong necessarily to see that they were definite issues that drew the ire of the Islamic world. Ron Paul also mentions that Al-Qaeda wanted to draw us out into a prolonged conflict over there in the worthless sandlot that is Afghanistan (where the British and Soviet Empires met their ends)
This article here also backs this claim up and below is a quote from the article.
“In The Looming Tower, the Pulitzer-winning history of al-Qaeda and the road to 9/11, author Lawrence Wright lays out how Osama bin Laden’s motivation for the attacks that he planned in the 1990s, and then the September 11 attacks, was to draw the U.S. and the West into a prolonged war—an actual war in Afghanistan, and a broader global war with Islam.
Osama got both. And we gave him a prolonged war in Iraq to boot. By the end of Obama’s first term, we’ll probably top 6,000 dead U.S. troops in those two wars, along with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans. The cost for both wars is also now well over $1 trillion.”
Yet Leland goes on to claim that it is just the expansion of radical Islam. Question, why can’t both be right, in fact Ron Paul has said many times that our current foreign Policy fuels radical Islam. The CIA even coined the term Blowback for the consequences of our foreign policy.
At the 40:20 mark “Mr. Theocracy” Rick Santorum of course is given the chance to chime in as he has in the past few debates as if this whole thing is scripted anyway being critical of Paul for what was posted on his website on 9/11. So let’s take a look at this ill advised post shall we.
Leland agrees that Santorum was correct in his assessment. I would too, as well as Paul. We have to stop seeing in black and white in this colored world to understand all aspects and deal with it wisely. I think Paul does that, Paul does not condemn all of the Middle East or Islam for the actions of radicals nor does he condone their actions. What he does do is point out their own stated motives, (yes in a letter) they do all kinds of horrible things, but they do explain it in writings and videos, you don’t have to agree with it, you don’t have to like it, it does not even have to makes sense, but you had best recognize it and give it some consideration. When one commits a murder we try and find out the motive, just because we find the motive out does not mean we acquit them but convict them (little more complicated than that but you get my point); however, at the same time the punishment must fit the crime. Are 2 wars almost 10 years long, and several others under way in an entire region of the world at the cost of many lives, resources, and liberties worth it; especially when it is there goal to have us languish there until bankruptcy and sacrificing liberty at home. I say not.
Now to what I consider the most egregious comment of the show, I can handle the tin foil stuff, that is old “hat” if you will, but to assert that Ron Paul told a lie, thus making him a liar is beyond the pale, especially when by many he is considered the most honest man in D.C. and American politics in general despite whatever political affiliation one may have or agreement or disagreement people have with him.
Ron Paul asserted around the 42:45 mark that we have killed 100’s of thousands of innocent Iraqi’s for 10 years (not tens of years Leland) which is about how long the Iraq war has been going on, so pardon the rounding. Also pardon the rounding on Paul’s death count too if that makes him a liar, but for the totals check out the links below.
For this Leland, you call him a liar, thus attempting to unravel and discredit the most likely 85% of which you agree with Ron Paul on all for the sake of this one issue. It’s also naive to think they only attack us because we are free and not because of our foreign policy, especially given their own words. The way I see it both angles are correct but one is not being understood, most likely because we like to live in willful ignorant bliss.
BTW The troops don’t seem to mind his ideas as in 2008 and now in 2012 Ron Paul gets the most donations from the troops. I figured they would be the best gauge of where this country needs to be going in terms of military conflict and Paul is the easiest candidate to gauge on his stances as he is consistent in them. Follow the Constitution!
For the Best of Ron Paul’s answers during the debate, check out this clip
If President Obama’s first stimulus package worked so well, why do we need another one so soon? And if it didn’t work, why should we try it all over again? If you are scratching your head, looking for logic in President Obama’s jobs plan, you will be looking for a while.
The President introduced a plan to jump start the economy with a price tag of $457 billion, or roughly half the final price of “Stimulus 1.0.” Obama plans to pay for it by asking the “Congressional Super Committee on Deficit Reduction” to try to find more cuts or raise taxes.
Essentially, we’re going to spend another half trillion we don’t have, and to pay for it we’re going to ask a politically deadlocked committee of career politicians to “try a little harder” to find some place to cut?
What would a real jobs plan look like?
Here’s what I would propose if I were in a position to offer some ideas.
Lower taxes, broaden the tax base and simplify the tax code. Roughly 48% of Americans pay no income taxes at all. At the same time, there are loopholes that have resulted in ridiculous inequities in the tax system for major corporations. For example, Jeff Immelt, the CEO of GE and top advisor to Obama on jobs presided over a company that made $14 billion in profit, but paid nearly nothing in taxes last year.
The tax base must be broadened. But the existence of the loopholes is proof that without relief, the current rates are unsustainable. I propose a three tiered income tax bracket with zero loopholes – 15%, 12.5% and 10%. (I am a fair, or consumption tax supporter and believe we should work toward eliminating the income tax altogether, but in the spirit of compromise and with the understanding that a fair tax isn’t politically feasible at this time, let’s start here and move on.)
Corporate taxes should be slashed from 35% to 15%. We currently have the second highest corporate tax rate in the developed world (See reason for loopholes.) There is no excuse for this, lowering our corporate tax rate will makes us competitive. Let the hiring begin.
To encourage investment, we should eliminate the capital gains tax. Profits from investments should simply be counted as regular income and taxed accordingly based on the tax bracket the individual earner falls into.
Deregulate and wind down the EPA’s powers immediately. I’m not against all regulations. I am for the rule of law and common sense regulations that level the playing field. But most regulations simply create new bureaucracies that need to be maintained and slow the process of business. I would suggest focusing on recent EPA regulations that will drive up the cost of energy by closing power plants and restricting our access to our own natural resources. The EPA’s power should be reduced to simply enforcing basic environmental rules, not writing law outside the confines of Congress.
Abandon Obamacare in favor of market based reforms. The single biggest hamper to the American economy right now is the uncertainty surrounding Obamacare and its 500+ new regulations and costs. No one is hiring because they are unsure of the cost to maintain their current workforce – let alone new workers. Obamacare is an unconstitutional mill stone around the neck of our economy and must be cut loose and thrown overboard immediately.
If Obama were serious about getting the economy going again, he’s be pushing government out of the way. Had Obama suggested just 3 of these five points, I’d be applauding him today. Instead, he called a joint session of congress to try and sell the American people a retread economic plan that has already failed. There will be no recovery so long as President Obama is unwilling to change direction.
***Update – a reader brought to our attention today that this post had dissappeared from the site. Since we’re not quite sure what happened, we’re going with the “inadvertant keystroke” excuse. Oh well – its something that we thought was important enought to say twice anyway.***
Grant County will be giving a 75% property tax break to the “Ark Encounter” theme park which will soon be built there. This is in addition to the approximately $47 million dollar tax exemption granted by the state. While, as a Christian I support this venture and see it as a viable business idea, I see no reason to grant them an exception over other businesses in the tax code.
The claim is that the Ark Encounter will create jobs so the tax break will feed back into the community, therefore everyone benefits and thus the tax exemption is justified. But what about businesses in other areas of the state, who pay full taxes and will not benefit from the Ark Park’s existence?
The time has come to end the government’s ability to pick winners and losers.
We hear a lot of talk from pundits about “paying our fair share.” Yet no one can really articulate exactly what “share” is “fair.”
The description of fair varies from individual to individual. Hollywood actor and activist Matt Damon thinks we should take 50% of every dollar earned by people making over $1 million per year. Liberal film maker Michael Moore says that the government should be able to “take” an untold amount of the cash that rich people are sitting on because that “cash belongs to us, it’s a national resource.” President Obama thinks that “at some point, you’ve made enough money,” whatever that means.
While many are decrying the rich for allegedly not paying their fair share, they fail to see the real inequities in the American tax system. Why is it ok that General Electric made nearly $14 billion in profits last year and paid almost no taxes? Yet when oil companies make the same profit, they are derided as evil, greedy owners of “corporate jets.” Could it be that some have subjectively decided that GE is good because their CEO Jeffry Immelt sits on Obama’s economic advisory board? Does it matter to them that GE just shipped thousands of jobs to China?
The problem with the left’s position on taxes is that they can’t seem to define the words they use to describe their own ideology. They seem to think that the government owns all of our income and that it’s only ok for us to keep that which government benevolently allows us to have – based on our abilities and needs of course.
Enter the millions of confusing and overlapping tax deductions, loopholes and exemptions. Our tax code is so inscrutable, that it may actually be impossible to determine what is fair and what is not.
But why wouldn’t it be fair to allow all businesses and individuals to compete in the market place on a level playing field?
Again the left attempts to define a level playing field as, one in which positive outcomes are ensured for all by a benevolent government. Such a policy can no more successfully be enforced than an NFL football game can be fairly played if referees were allowed to make rule changes on the fly. No team in their right mind would set foot in a stadium without first being assured that the rules are concrete, apply to every player and are written and enforced – thus ensuring that the best team wins. Why should the economy be any different?
Some of my friends have told me that if the Ark Park didn’t get this exemption an opportunity to create jobs would be missed. This is not a sufficient argument for giving some a favorable tax rate over others, but rather a stronger argument that our overall taxes are too high. How many more businesses would locate in Kentucky if we assured them of friendlier and fairer tax environment?