Here is the Tax Plan to save the economy, AND Social Security

Let's get the labels out of the way FIRST; It is a FLAT TAX!

Now on to the Details;

A Flat 18% income tax. No loopholes, deductions, carve outs, No ways for crooked politicians to craft new tax policy specifically for their donors. Only a generous personal exemption of $10,000 per taxpayer, and $5,000 per dependent. THAT'S IT! OH, and if you end up with zero tax liability, or less than $500.00, you MUST pay the MINIMUM tax of $500.00. EVERYONE must have skin in the game. Everyone benefits from society, therefore everyone must contribute.

For Businesses it is ALSO simple. a Flat 18% tax on net operating profits.

Now to the numbers;

According to the IRS; there are 209,000,000 taxpayers earning $12.5 trillion dollars. There are also 62,000,000 dependents. This means that we will lose $2.1 trillion to personal exemptions, under my plan, leaving $10.4 trillion being taxed at 18%, bringing in $1,872,000,000,000.00.

For Business;

According to the IRS there are $1.724 trillion in business profits. taxed at 18%, this brings an additional $310,320,000,000.00 for a total revenue of $2.183 trillion.

Now here is where it gets fun;

TOTAL Federal revenue for 2010 was:

$2.2 Trillion. of which;

$1.1 trillion was income taxes

$900 billion was SS and Medicare/aid

$200 billion was business taxes.

NOTICE, that our income tax plan covers Social Security revenue as well. This is to protect those Social Security recipients collecting, or about to collect social security. For anyone 50 or under, They will have the option to "opt out" of social security. This means that the 12.4% of their pay will keep being paid, but to a retirement fund that THEY OWN AND CONTROL, NOT CONGRESS! Initially only broad based index fund, municipal bonds, and other "safe" investments will be allowed, but those restrictions will ease, as more people opt for that and the burden on the taxpayer eases.

The Flat tax on business, and the prohibition on Congress from screwing this up, will make the economy explode. Gone will be the trademark temporary band aids and uncertainty of the Obama administration. Gone will be the endless need to bribe crooked politicians for favors. Gone will be the need to spend, collectively $600 billion on tax preparation, planning, and avoidance.

The flat tax on individuals will mean the savings of $64 billion spent on income tax preparation, and avoidance. A Flood of new capital for investment, and the opening up of former tax shelters to productive use of capital, as the tax consequences have diminished, as well as the need to avoid future political footballs. Social Security will be funded for those who wish to remain in it, and for those who wish to increase their retirement funds, they will be able to do so.

My loony lefty friends, You may now proceed to attempt to poke holes in this.

Federal Fiscal Idiocy

In a not too distant past, Presidents exhibited LEADERSHIP. This meant that during times of War, the president was front and center laying out his vision for winning, and ending the war. In fiscal crisis, the President was front and center telling the American people What his plan was to deal with the crisis, and why it would work.

OUR President has chosen to "Lead from behind" (in previous administrations this would have been considered FOLLOWING!) Eight months to decide on Military tribunals. Seven months to decide to send more troops into Afghanistan. 37 days of oil flowing into Gulf to find time in his bust golf schedule to meet with the head of BP. Warned by rating agencies of an impending downgrade of our debt, if $4 trillion of debt was not cut, He chose to present a budget with 1,200 NEW spending programs, that would ADD $9.9 TRILLION to the debt over 10 years ON TOP of the $5 trillion already added in the first two years of his dearth of leadership. So disastrous was his budget that in the Democrat controlled Senate IT FAILED TO GARNER A SINGLE VOTE! 0-97!

Here are some sobering statistics, to demonstrate the scope of what failure of leadership has wrought;

The top 10%, or 13,996,058 people pay 70% of the nations bills!, while 240,000,000 PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES! Since 1982 we have pushed an ever growing burden upon the shoulders of an ever shrinking segment of the populace. And NOW, under the cheering on of the most divisive president in history, those 240,000,000 BELIEVE what their president tells them, that these 13,995,058 are NOT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE!

Under our president's direction, the federal government NOW spends 26% of EVERY DOLLAR this nation produces! If you throw in State and Local governments, 49% of EVERY DOLLAR EARNED IN THIS COUNTRY GOES TO GOVERNMENT!

This means that the producers, have to work TWICE AS HARD to feed their own families because the government takes half of their production. As the Envirowackos say, "This is unsustainable"!

What ARE "worker's rights"?

We hear a lot of discussion about worker's rights. usually the people doing the talking couldn't care less about the individual worker, but more about using that individual to advance their own political agenda.

So let's examine what "rights" workers should enjoy. First, when a worker is hired by the company that employs them, their hiring is, in effect, a contract between the company, and the individual. The individual agrees to provide the best of his efforts for a fixed sum of money. The employer agrees to provide certain delineated conditions, pay, benefits in exchange for that labor. This is basic. But those who purport to defend worker's rights, do not have this basic exchange in mind. Their efforts are aimed at emasculating the employer to the increasing benefit of the worker.

Providing the employer adheres to his end of the bargain, should the employee be able to force the employer to pay more than his labor is worth to the company? The union bosses would say YES!, however I would be willing to bet that if the company demanded less pay in exchange for the same work, they would howl. But how can it be "fair" for one side to hold the other hostage, but not the reverse?

Does the worker have the right to lay down his tools and stop work at any time? Yes, This practice is usually followed by the end of that employment. Is this fair? Yes, Absolutely, the worker, by ceasing to provide his labor, assuming that the employer was holding up their end of the bargain, broke the deal.

Does the worker have the right to demand better pay or working conditions? YES, they do, but if the employer is not willing to meet their demands, they are free to continue working, or leave, NOT to hold that business hostage until their demands are met.

Does the employer have the right to cut worker pay arbitrarily in bad economic times? NO, The pay is a fixed sum agreed upon hire. The worker must get paid before the owner gets paid.

These simple basic rights are NOT what your politicians in Washington refer to when talking about worker's rights. They mean "card check" which is the abolition of secret ballot voting for union representation. They wish to replace the secret ballot, with forced unionization upon signing of a card, regardless of circumstances. They mean "living wage", which means a FORCED minimum wage of between $12.00- $20.00 per hours REGARDLESS OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS!

Who pays for all of this demanded largess? We all do in higher prices, lower competitiveness, fewer jobs, more regulation.

It is time to Kill Robin Hood

All throughout our childhood we learned the story of Robin Hood. Immortalized, and taught to us as the triumph of the poor over the rich. Robin is ALWAYS pictured as a champion of the poor. But is that the truth?

The popular, and politically motivated, version of the story is that Robin Hood stole from the thieving rich to give to the downtrodden poor worker. Aww, does there exist a more potent symbol for the Socialist utopia?

The TRUTH is that Robin Hood was not a champion of the "poor", but of "property". Prince Richard(the government) was stealing through ever increasing taxation the fruits of the poor farmers labors. The Farmers(the private sector) who was receiving little direct benefit from this legalized theft, were actually supporting their oppressors, while being powerless to stop it.

Along came Robin Hood and his band of merry Men, to save the day. They stole back form the Prince that which he had stolen from the farmers, through excessive taxation, and returned it to it's rightful owners.

If the story were acted out today, in it's literal accomplishments, Robin would be an anti-tax collector of sorts, retrieving our purloined monies from the IRS to restore to those who had it appropriated from them, which in today's America would mean 69.94% to the top 10% of income earners, 16.4% to the next 15% of income earners, 11% to the next 25% of income earners with the bottom 50% of income earners getting the 2.7% left. As that is today's income tax distribution.

We now live in a time where the Ruling party in Washington has governed for 953 days without the LEGALLY required budget. hence, with no spending plans or restraints upon them they have increased spending dramatically, But EVEN THEY, as corrupt and self centered as they are, could not approve Obama's budget proposal which further increased spending by $9.7 trillion dollars. While the President demand more tax revenue, neither he nor his party can tell you what they are going to do with it. WHY would we give them more of our hard earned money, for them to blow as they have the last three years?

The future success of our Nation directly correlates to our perception of stories like this. The more people see it as stealing from the thieving rich to give to the poor workers, the further we slouch towards Socialism. The more people see it for what it is, The workers RIGHT to own the fruits of their labors, the Freer our nation will become.

Are you better of than you were 4 years ago?

For 30 years this has been the central question of Presidential campaigns. If you are not then there is no compelling reason to re-elect the incumbent. So lets look at this question as it applies today.

Oct. 2007;

Unemployment: 4.7%

Inflation: .03%

GDP Growth: 3.2% annualized

Debt: $9.0T Deficit: $160B

Fed. SPending: $2.66T

Oct. 2011;

Unemployment: 9.1%(12.9% if labor participation rate were equal)

Inflation: 3.77%

GDP Growth: 1.7% annualized

Debt: $15.1T

Deficit: $1645B

Fed. SPending: $3.86T

Clearly there is no economic reason to re elect president Obama. So what HAS he accomplished? 30 months into his administration we have lost 1.9 million jobs. We have given our health care decisions over to the government in a massively unpopular Obamacare program. Our president is passing legislation that failed in Congress by executive fiat, through executive order and bureaucratic regulatory implementation. We are now engaged in THREE military actions instead of two, and have sent troops to a fourth. Iran is on the verge of entering the Nuclear club, our Debt has been downgraded, and may be again.

Please can anyone make an affirmative case FOR Obama's re-election?

The Anti- Achiever

There was a time when we elected a president in the midst of a decade long financial decline. Inflation was choking our economy, and the outgoing president had resigned himself to making speeches about managing America's decline.

This president spoke of Morning in America, and getting government out of the way. Of allowing people to create their own prosperity and reducing inflation, and growing the economy, of winning the cold war, and making America pre-eminent again. He entered office amidst horrible economic numbers, and in 30 months, his policies had taken America from inflation of 11.6% to 4.4%. Prime rate of 21.2% to 8.5%. Unemployment of 10.3% to 5.1%, and an economy growth rate increase from 1.2% to 5.7%. He confronted our enemies, and won the cold war, ending the threat of nuclear war. That man was Ronald Reagan. Love him or hate him, he led, and did so regardless of what his enemies said about him.

Currently we have a president who was elected during another time of fiscal crisis. Instead of a ten year decline, he came into office one year into what should have been a short, sharp recession. Discarding the demonstrated success of Reagan for the decades long malaise of FDR, He began emulating the father of modern inflation. In his first 30 months, his policies took inflation from 0.03% to 3.87% and rising rapidly. They increased unemployment from 7.3% to 9.3%, however at the same time they declined the labor participation rate by 4.2%, meaning that if that rate remained unchanged since 2009, the true unemployment rate today would be 12.6%. His policies have created no revenue, and unlike Reagan, who tax cuts doubled federal income tax revenues in under 4 years, Obama's revenues are flat, as is economic growth. His policies have taken the deficit from 1.17% of GDP to 12.4% of GDP, and our debt has topped 100% of GDP for the first time since WWII. Our president, who campaigned upon lofty rhetoric of hope and changes has sunken to a cheap campaign demagogue, offering no leadership, but decrying his opposition for not falling in line with his wishes. He has gone from uplifting although generic speeches, to childish whining as to why others will not obey him.

History will come to regard this president as the first president of style, but no substance.

Media Hypocrisy is astounding!

For the Media in this country, a Republican presidential candidate must be PERFECT!, A conservative candidate must not be tolerated, and a Democrat candidate must do no more than profess their fillial piety to the altar of Liberalism.

Consider the campaign of GWB, the media harped for 16 days upon a drunk driving charge from 21 years prior while the candidate was in college. They progressed from this to CBS News manufacturing a story using forged documents a month before the election.

Consider Herman Cain, as soon as he begins leading in the polls a media hit piece about an allegation(not charges) of sexual harrassment made 14 years prior against him, without attribution, and the media fawns over it, and builds the story up for days, while the media made a career of ignoring Bill Clinton's serial sexual predations. Dan Rather even going so far as to declare that he would not report on that.

The media places republican candidates through a microscope, while giving the questionable associations of Barack Obama a pass. They attempted to destroy Sarah Pain's family, even postulating that her down's syndrome child might be the result of an incestuous relationship. barack Obama was largely given a pass about his associations with Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, et.al. Bill Clinton was staunchly defended throughout the Paula Jones/Lewinsky case by NOW, The very organization whose purpose is to defend women against this type of behavior.

The hypocrisy and media double standards are stunning to behold. How I long for the days when the NEWS consisted of FACTS, and Opinions were left for editorials.

The Economics of Failure

The Economics of failure

By election day, Our President will have added $7 trillion to the debt. that is the current debt ceiling. That spending was allowed because of certain promises made by the president. He promised that if his stimulus was passed it would keep unemployment from topping 8%. It sailed right past that mark topping out at 10.3%, and settling around 9.2% He promised that Obamacare would bend the cost curve down. the CBO is now forecasting it to cost $3.2 Trillion over 10 years. And THAT is just the taxpayers cost.

What have we ACTUALLY got for this debt? Unemployment has gone from 7.3% to 10.3% currently settling at 9.2%, BUT this figure is misleading because the labor participation rate has declined by 4.1%, If the labor participation rate was the same as when Stimulus was passed the unemployment rate would now be 12.4% We have deficits at 12% of GDP. FLAT GDP growth. Debt at 102% of GDP.

President Obama has done more to economically destroy this country than any president since FDR. And in an effort to get re- elected this president has decided to abandon his hope and change rhetoric for divide and conquer. He abdicated leadership early on, but now, with few results and fresh out of ideas, he is being weighed down by his own spending and debt. Following the path of Europe is not an option for Us as there is No America to bail us out!

Crony Capitalism at it's best

In 2008, Unions ponied up $283 million dollars of their workers dues for President Obama to get elected, THis bought ALOT of access. In his first year in office, SEIU($85 million in campaign funds) president, Andy Stern was a White House visitor 47 times. More than anyone else. 46 times more than the Director of Central Intelligence. 45 times more than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Obama passed his Stimulus package which included $467 billion to states to shore up their underwater budgets. A gift to public sector union employees, mainly teachers. This one bill put $123 million into the pockets of those unions in dues.

Then came the Teacher bailout in 8/2010. A $26 billion measure that would "save" 400,000 teachers jobs. This added another $21 million to the unions deep pockets. Now the President is proposing a $447 billion "jobs" bill that repeats the same failed actions of the previous bailouts. Another proposed $83 billion to public sector union employees, which, if passed will generate another 474 million into the unions pockets in dues.

Add to this the $2.4 billion in solar loans to companies that donated to Obama's campaign through a bundler that just happened to be an advisor to the DOE on the "green jobs" initiative.

These actions are all defended by the very same left, that decried Halliburton getting no bid service to troops contracts in Iraq, while refusing to acknowledge that there were only two companies in the world who did that type of work, and the other was French.

Obama's union donors put up over $200 million for him to get the office, and they have gotten in return, $247 million in cash, PLUS 47% ownership of GM, and 40% ownership of Chrysler! NOW THAT IS A PROFIT!

The President is lying!

After listening to leftist politicians decry "Republican Spending cuts", I did a quick google search of the terms "federal spending cuts hurt" returning 2.6 million articles.

While this appears to be the campaign meme, the fact is it is untrue. There have been NO federal spending cuts! In fact spending is increasing.

A quick trip to the Treasury website confirms that federal spending for the first 9 months of 2011 are up 5% over the same period last year. ANd so is the debt!

In fact, the federal debt has increased by $870Billion this year alone! The deficit for this year alone is $1.645 TRILLION!

And the Federal government took in $2.173 trillion in total revenue, $1.467trillion coming form the income taxes of the top 10% of income earners, BTW, the Government at the same time spent $2.21 trillion on social security, medicare/aid, and welfare.

So how can our politicians, our president campaign on Republican spending cuts hurting the poor, the kiddies, the seniors, while there are no spending cuts, and while the presidents own Obamacare, combined with Stimulus jr. bill take $700 billion away from Medicare?

Very simple, He and they are lying to you.

Presidential Advice we should follow

In 2008, Obama said: “If I don’t have this(economy turned around) in 3 years, then this is going to be a one term proposition” and; There is too much of a sense of hopelessness in this country, we can not afford to lose a generation to poverty.

Three years later the poverty rate, which was 12.9% when obama took office, is now 14.7%.

In 2008, Obama said; “When we are losing jobs month after month our economy is not strong, We need change” When Obama took office the U3 unemployment rate was 7.3%, the U6 was 12.8%. Today the U3 unemployment rate is 9.2%, the U6 is 17.9%.

In 2009, Obama said; “I want to get going on things that will create jobs right now” Between that speech and now the Country has LOST 2,400,000 jobs according to the BLS. Add to that the fact that during the same period the labor participation rate has dropped by 4.1%, meaning that if participation rate were the same as it was when Obama took office then the U3 rate would be 11.8%, and the U6 would be 20.3%.

In 2008, Obama said; “Since 2001 when GWB took office average American families have seen their household income drop by $2,000.00.” According to the IRs, the average American family has seen their income drop by $4,154 in Obama’s first 30 months in office.

In 2009, Obama said; “My health care plan will bend the cost curve down for the average American family. They will see their health care costs decrease” The average family health care plan in March 2009 was $12,380, The average family health care plan in 2011 is $15,677.

In January 2009, Obama said; “My economic recovery plan will create 3.5 million new jobs”(later changed to created or saved). The total number of people employed in Jan.2009 was 142,201,000, in July 2011, 139,206,000.

In February 2009, Obama said; “My economic plan will not allow inflation to rise above 2%. Inflation rate Feb. 2009 was 0.03%, the Inflation rate in July 2011, is 3.77%.

In Dec. 2008, Obama said; “imagine a president like me, raised by a single mom who had to take food stamps once in a while”. Food stamp usage Dec. 2008, 31.1 million recipients. Food stamp recipients in August 2011 45.4 million recipients.

Mar. 16, 2006, Obama said; “ Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren” AND “America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership, that is why I am voting AGAINST raising the debt ceiling”. The debt at that time was $8,271,005,203,336.67, on Oct. 4, 2011 it is $14,856,859,498,405.73.

By any standard you choose, indeed by his own standards, Obama’s policies have failed miserably. It is time to follow the sage advice of one Barack Hussein Obama who famously said on February 2, 2009 in a Today show interview with Matt Lauer; “If will be held accountable, if in three years I don’t have this done, it will be a one term proposition”

Good Bye Barack.

Debt Commission is just Political Theatre

September 13, 2011

Letter: There's plenty of waste to cut in the budget

To the editor:

The debt commission met last week to begin their odyssey to find $1.5 trillion in spending reductions in the federal budget.

This is typical Washington political theater designed to fool all the people some of the time. They could save their $25 million budget, by simply asking the GAO, or the Heritage Foundation, or Citizens Against Government Waste, who have been looking at this problem for years. Or they could look at the 607 wasteful programs identified by the Bush administration audit of governmental operations in 2001. Note that Congress did not even discuss the report.

If they simply reduced spending to 2008 levels the budget could be balanced by 2019 without tax increases, according to the GAO. Bear in mind that this illustrious panel, decreed by President Obama to do that which neither he nor Congress could do in the eight months prior, has the ridiculously low target of $150 billion per year in cuts. Out of a $4 trillion budget, this is a mere 3.7 percent trim.

They could almost reach this target by eliminating the $129 billion in improper payments made annually. Or they could save the $25 billion spent maintaining vacant government buildings — buildings worth $111 billion: sell them — or the $92 billion spent annually in corporate welfare (excluding TARP). How about the 22 percent of federal programs identified by the GAO in their audit that "make no impact upon the population they serve"? This is another $123 billion. How about the $2.6 million the government spends teaching Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly? What about the 47 percent of all government credit card purchases that the GAO's audit revealed as "improper, fraudulent, or embezzled", such as the $13,500 dinner at a Ruth's Chris Steakhouse that the Post Office charged. What about the $146 million spent flying government employees first class?

This very short list readily available on the Internet would save $423 billion annually by itself. And this is just some of the low hanging fruit. But the geniuses in Congress and the White House need this super panel to shield themselves from having to tell anyone their favored slush fund is cut off.

Perhaps we need a program to teach our senators, congresspeople, and president leadership and responsibility! Perhaps we need to remind these people that they occupy temporary jobs — and they work for us!

MARK ACCIARD

Atkinson

Social Security IS a Ponzi Scheme

Charles Ponzi would be proud. Gov. Perry has come under fire for stating the obvious, that social security is a Ponzi Scheme. That means that it takes in money from current investors to pay out the original investors, and the money keeps circulating. It will crash when the people realize that there is not money in the "social security trust fund" to actually pay benefits. Oh, I know, the social security actuary says there is $2.7 trillion in that fund, and there is... kind of.


See, what has happened since 1968 is that every single year Congress has spent the money that is paid into social security, beyond what is paid out(the surplus), and replaced it with SPECIAL CLASS NON NEGOTIABLE TREASURY BONDS. These bonds can not be traded on the open market, and therefore have no marketable value beyond their role as place holders for the hard earned money of taxpayers that Congress squandered.


This system worked GREAT, when there was 14 workers for every beneficiary, and the surpluses were rolling in, but now when there is 2.3 workers for every beneficiary, and we are paying out more than we are taking in, the Ponzi Scheme is reaching collapse.


We, the taxpayers, entrusted to congress our money to invest for retirement. They told us they were "investing in America". ROFLMAO, what this meant was placing those bonds in place of money. If a corporation did this, it's officers would be in federal prison. a corporation has to not only fund the pension program, but has to invest it in such a way that it will pay the retirees, or else they have to make up the shortfall, but not the government, they will simply tax you more to pay for your own retirement, that you already paid them for, but they spent in a manner that would embarrass drunken sailors.


So this year marks the beginning of the baby boomers retirement. From this point on, social security will spend more than it takes in, and every year this shortfall will have to be made up with tax dollars, in addition to the 43% of what the government spends that is borrowed. This is a situation that can not continue for long, before bankruptcy is the only honorable option. But then again, personal honor has never been an electable trait.

Why Social Security is heading for a fall

February 11, 2011

Letter: Why Social Security is heading for a fall

To the editor:

Social Security is functionally bankrupt due to 40 years of dishonest politicians using our retirement funds to buy votes. This really started in 1968, but has continued unabated.

Yes, I know, that there is currently $2.5 trillion in special U.S. Treasury bonds being held in the "trust fund." But those bonds currently amount to worthless IOUs. If a corporation did this, its officers would be in prison, but for Congress it is business as usual.

What happens is: We pay our payroll taxes, and Congress promptly spends that and more, replacing this money with bonds. These bonds are a promise to pay in the future. There is no money to redeem these bonds. The Social Security actuary announced recently that this year Social Security will pay out more than it takes in, going "into the red" for the first time.

As time rolls on, this shortfall will have to be made up by the general fund. Currently Congress spends $1.5 trillion more than it takes in through the general fund. The national debt is already 98 percent of GDP. There is no more room for increased spending.

Contrast this with a corporation, which, if providing a pension, would have to invest the funds in that account and plan on the return. Social Security was initially set up the same way, with trust funds managed by portfolio managers to provide a return. The return forecasted was an unrealistic 6 percent annually.

When Congress spends the money, they tell the public that they are putting bonds with a yield of 5 percent in place, without acknowledging that these funds, as well as the original funds they have blown, must also come from the same place they are currently stealing from — the taxpayers.

Obama has no plan to reduce our debt

April 20, 2011

Letter: Obama has no plan to reduce our debt

To the editor:

The current debate over government spending in Washington was invited by the Democrats' failure last year to write a budget for this current year. This forced a series of continuing resolutions to fund government.

As we have come to expect our commander-in-chief was nowhere to be found in this debate. Less than two months ago, the president put forth a budget that cut nothing, instead calling for $400 billion in new spending. Despite the continued begging from House Dems for his involvement in the budget process he chose instead to golf.

Into the void left by Obama jumped a representative, Paul Ryan, who devised a budget that tackles spending without huge tax increases, and without starving the government. He was invited by President Obama to sit front and center for the president's campaign kick off speech yesterday, only to be humiliated and demagogued by the president using his bully pulpit not to lay out an alternate plan — although he referred to "his plan" many times, as usual there is no specifics.

It is not leadership to give a speech, with no specific policies, nor any fresh ideas, but it is evidently what passes for leadership in the Obama White House. Obama chose instead to lie outright about the Republicans' budget, claiming that it does not have any money for autistic kids, grandmothers and the neediest among us.

The Ryan budget does lay out specifics, something the president is evidently afraid to do. It does not de-fund Medicare, it instead gives that funding to the people responsible for providing the services, the states, and allows them the freedom to spend it as their state and patients need it, rather than having to follow a mindless bureaucracy 3,000 miles away. It also reins in spending, recognizing that federal spending has increased 83 percent in only three years with little positive impact on the general public, but with an unsustainable debt and deficit.

At some point the president is going to have to realize that we can not control our debt by adding 10 percent per year to it.

Wake up, people! We are functionally bankrupt

July 25, 2011

Letter: Wake up, people! We are functionally bankrupt

To the editor:

Yes, If we were a business we would be bankrupt. With budget deficits of $1.5 trillion per year for the next 10 years (at least the last time the Democrats prepared a budget) and $14.6 trillion in debt, plus another $114 trillion in unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and prescription drug benefits. Yes, you read that correctly, six times our entire economy.

We watch daily the Congressional Kabuki dance going on over raising the debt limit. The left is incensed, claiming racism, that the Republicans would put any conditions on raising the debt. The Republicans are at least trying to address an out of control problem (yes, that they, as a party, helped create over the years), but someone has to stand up and put a plan on the table, and so far, only the Republicans have done so. The Democrats in Congress have been happy to demagogue the issue, with Harry Reid admitting that "it would be foolish to pass a budget now." Our president is reduced to doing that one thing at which he appears to excel, making speeches. He has presented no specifics, and when asked by a reporter to name one program he would cut, he was unable to do so.

It is time for the American people to wake up and smell the cesspool backing up in Washington. The spending of our grandkids' money has to stop.

Where is the outrage as Obama surpasses Bush?

April 6, 2011

Letter: Where is the outrage as Obama surpasses Bush?

April 6, 2011

To the editor:

For eight years we were treated to an endless media blitz about the illegality of the war, the impropriety of keeping prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, the warrantless wiretapping, the USA Patriot act, the "record deficits" ($426 billion when that claim was made), the mounting debt ($9.4 trillion when that claim was made). To hear the left in 2008, America was falling apart and only the messiah of hope and change could save it.

Obama promised to "get our forces out of Iraq within the year" and to "close Guantanamo Bay within one year", and to "grow our economy" and "reign in the reckless spending of the Bush years", to "bring America back from the brink" and "restore our financial footing."

In reality, he has spent $4.5 trillion in only two years, more than Bush spent in eight. He has increased the national debt by $4.5 trillion more than Bush did in eight years. He has quadrupled the record deficit he railed against in 2008. He passed the most massive regulatory and spending bill in history, Obamacare, and unemployment has risen dramatically higher than ever achieved by Bush. The only reason it is dropping the last two months is because people fall off the rolls when they stop looking for work and run out of benefits.

So where are the protests? Where is Michael Moore doing a mockumentary on the failure of the president? Where is Cindy Sheehan? Where is Nancy, Harry, Dick, and Brother Jesse? Where is all the outrage that marked the Bush years?

Obama has continued and expanded every one of Bush's national security policies, even announcing the resuming of military tribunals at the hated Gitmo. Troops in Afghanistan have been expanded as has Iraq, and we now have troops in Libya, Bahrain, Qatar, and more. We still have warrantless wiretapping, the USA Patriot Act, higher deficits, and more reckless spending. Where are the protests? Where is the outrage?

Could it be that all of that manufactured outrage on the political left during the Bush administration was not genuine concern for the issues, but rabid hatred of one man instead? Hypocrisy lives on.

There's no disaster if debt deal fails

July 14, 2011

Letter: There's no disaster if debt deal fails

—

To the editor:

We hear the punditry, the president and others tell us that we must raise the debt limit by $2.4 trillion by Aug. 2 or else! Or else what?

Well, to listen to the president, we would default on our debt, thereby plunging the world into financial ruin. The Republicans, however, want to see $4 trillion to $6 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years before they will agree to anything.

The Republicans are right — history bearing them out — to insist on cuts up-front. Typically, Congress will raise taxes immediately, while promising cuts five years out, then simply refuse to implement the cuts. This is how we got here, and it is disingenuous at best to hear the man who ran up $4.5 trillion in new spending in two years claim it is Congress' fault and problem, and play the part of the responsible statesman trying to broker a deal.

The point is that if the debt ceiling is not raised, it does not mean an automatic default. It means that we cannot borrow any further. That's it!

The government receives revenue daily, totaling approximately $200 billion per month. Debt service is $19 billion per month. Without borrowing any more the government could choose to continue paying the debt service, however this would mean that some other items would not get paid.

How serious is this? Well consider the following: We're spending $21 million to research how Frisbees fly; there's $137 billion in unspent stimulus funds; $129 billion in improper payments; $41 billion to the 423,000 new government employees; $8 million per month in limousine purchases; $2.3 million to chart shrimp on treadmills; a $427,824 research grant to design better video games for senior citizens based on their unique "game-play needs. Then there's the $712,883 research grant to develop "machine-generated humor." This project will design artificially intelligent "comedic performance agents", and will "deploy them both on- and off-line for the enjoyment and illumination of everyday citizens." There's the $54 million project to relocate one bridge for the Napa Valley Wine Train (!) in order to mitigate the possible impact of a "100 year storm event."

Yes, we could do without an awful lot of government spending before the politicians had to defund anything you care about. And when a politician — from congressman to president — tells you the world will end if they don't get more of your hard earned money, they are lying to you!

Debt ceiling deal is politics as usual

August 2, 2011

Letter: Debt ceiling deal is politics as usual

To the editor:

To listen to the media, we have a deal! Woo-hoo! Only one problem — this is a deal we have seen time and again throughout history, and it always ends the same.

This deal allows a $2.4 trillion rise in the debt ceiling immediately. This number was crucial to Obama because it means this subject will not have to be addressed again until after the election. However the vast majority of the alleged spending cuts do not start until 2013 — again, after the election.

Washington will tell us, and act as if these cuts are really going to be made. But if history is any guide, they will not.

Consider 1986. Reagan wanted spending cuts. He was mainly negotiating with house Speaker Tip O'Neill. The final deal promised $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. Reagan agreed. The only problem was the tax increases were immediate but the spending cuts were scheduled to begin in 1988, conveniently after the next congressional election. As O'Neill knew, today's Congress cannot bind the hands of future congresses. The cuts were never made. In 1991, George H.W. Bush made essentially the same deal, breaking his "no new taxes" pledge to get three-for-one spending cuts. The cuts never happened, and, in the 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton used Bush's breaking of that pledge as a rhetorical bludgeon, beating him about the head with it.

Flash forward to today. House Republicans tried to use this debt ceiling increase to force Washington to put its fiscal house in order. They announced their intent to do this in January, leaving eight months to resolve this before any deadline. Congress, as usual, waited until the month prior to begin serious proposals. Unfortunately, our president did not get involved until three weeks prior to deadline, other than making speeches.

This is another deal where the spending cuts will likely not materialize, and in January 2013, we will be having this debate again, hopefully with a president who will lead on this very serious matter.

a short idea for reform

Scott, I apologize for the delay in getting back to you, as promised, here goes, and please let me know what you think afterwards;

Healthcare:

Force doctors and hospitals to post price lists for routine procedures(office visits, chest x-ray, pap, etc.) This will allow people to shop for what they want. It will also inform the consumer of medical services of their cost.

Incentivise the patient to reduce their costs by a combination of MSA's, and insurance incentives(rebates, etc) for reducing costs.

Medical Tort prelim; here in NH if you wish to sue a government official you have to go to a 491 hearing. It is a preliminary hearing at which you have to show the judge that there is a clear likelihood that you will be able to prove your case, or the judge may dismiss it as frivolous. Do the same for MedTorts. Plaintiff would have to demonstrate likelihood of willful negligence, actual damages, or case may be dismissed. This will reduce torts, and resultant defensive medicine.

State Lines; Allow insurance to be purchased across state lines, are you aware that some states only allow 1 or 2 providers? This reduces competition, couple with this the end of state mandated minimum coverages. If I am a 22y/o male, I should not have to pay for annual PAP smears. This will also allow people to pay privately for routine office visits, and use insurance for the catastrophic events, in order to reduce their insurance costs if they wish. Choice always works!

In the case of someone here illegally, such as is driving AZ. hospitals into bankruptcy, they get stabilized, turned over to ICE, and their embassies get billed for their care. It sounds cruel, but in some states this is the single biggest cost driver.

Taxes:

a FLAT 15% income tax, same for business on net operating income. NO loopholes, deductions, etc. EXCEPT for a generous personal exemption of $12,000/taxpayer, and $7,000/dependent.

Examples:

Family of 4, income $50,000. 2 workers., $50,000- $38,000personal exemption= $12,000 taxable income at 15%= $1,800 income tax. effective tax rate 3.6%

Couple both work gross income $200,000- $24,000 personal exempt. = $176,000 taxable at 15%= $ 26,400 tax. effective rate 13.2%

family of 4, only Dad works gross income $1,000,000- $33,000 personal exempt. = $964,000 taxable at 15%= $144.600 tax. effective rate 14.46%

family of 3, only dad works, gross income $10M- $26,000 personal exempt.= $9,974,000 taxable at 15%= $1,496,400 tax. effective rate 14.96%

This is TRULY fair and progressive, and prevent the politicians from using the tax code to buy votes, and contributions.

Education:

Let your tax dollars go where your kids go. Let the parents choose. This will encourage more parental involvement, it will force schools to provide customer service, and accountability to the parents. Let me explain; If your current school district's budget is $14,000 per kid(budget/enrollment) Then if you decide to enroll your kid somewhere else, you get to take a voucher for 75% of that to your new school. if your new school is cheaper than that, the difference goes back to your current public school. In this manner the current school loses the costs of educating that child, but retains 25% of the compensation for what they are no longer doing. More money to be spent on the other kids, which will hopefully be spent wisely to improve the school the kids is leaving. NO FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT! Education is a state and local issue. It should be close enough to the community that the community can hold it accountable. Instead of STATE and FEDERAL mandated curriculae, have mandated goals for each grade. This is what you need to learn to graduate to the next grade. NO SOCIAL PROMOTION, do the work, or stay back. Moving kids through the system helps no one least of all the kids.

Budget:

STOP BASELINE BUDGETING! Every dept. head should have to justify every dollar every year. If the program is not achieving its goals, it ends! EVERY spending measure should have a sunset clause. If certain objectives have not been achieved by X it dies.

Every line item should be examined, no subsidies for anything; no corp welfare, no green energy welfare, no Ag welfare, No bailouts. NONE!

I know I have left some stuff out, but lets see how this flies. I am donning my flame retardant gear now.