Archive for February, 2011







Here are the links for the videos of the last post.

Pelosi/Gingrich Climate Change Commercial:


Newt’s affairs questioned:

In the past, these videos embedded directly into the email  So, I’ll work on debugging it.

Thanks for your support.



Newt Gingrich in 2007 in Washington, DC at the...

Image via Wikipedia

In the article linked here: It looks as though the former speaker is serious about a run at the presidency.

He won’t win against Obama.  He is damaged goods.


Fair Tax post update.

Posted: February 26, 2011 in politics, tax policy

I’m sorry, but if you’re a subscriber the video didn’t embed in the email.

If you want to see it go to this link.

All the best,


U.S. Rep. John Linder with the 2007 Tax code a...

U.S. Rep. John Linder with the 2007 Tax code and complete set of Title 26 of the US Code of Federal Regulations, from his official House website, (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Imagine no IRS. It's easy if you try.

With Republicans poised to once again have the Senate and maybe even the White House in 2012, it is time to push for the “Fair Tax.”

Watch the video and read the summary below.  I really would like to see your comments.

Smart, sarcastic and spot on!

Without trying to sound immodest, now and then I am unable to express my point of view better than expressed by someone else.

That is the case in this article by Ann Coulter.

I had truly been struggling for something to say.  Well, Ann did it for me.

So here, WITHOUT PERMISSION is Ann Coulter’s post on Public Sector unions and it is smart, sarcastic and spot on!

I recommend her website  Don’t sue me Ann.


I didn’t embed the videos properly.  You can access them through the links, but this is easier.  Here they are!


Deep in the heart of  Taxes, video 1



video 2

What JFK had to say about tax rates, revenue and economic growth.

Bonus Video

Sometimes I forget the best way to handle the multi media.  So, if you’ve come with me this far, you get this bonus video of JFK.

US taxes as a percent of income in 2008.

US taxes as a percent of income in 2008. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Upon simple contemplation I have the idea that taxes are necessary to fund government in the execution of its role in society.  Seems pretty simple.

The overarching political debate with which we grapple everyday is just what is government’s  role and consequently, what is the tax policy which supports that role.

Wait no, that’s not true.  They are in fact, very separate debates.

Watch this video.

If you listen carefully to the moderator, it’s clear within certain parameters, lower tax rates generate more income.  You obviously can’t lower them to zero.  However, it would seem that if you want to fund all the “wonderful” programs that government should be doing, you would set the rates to generate the most income.  But, that’s not what Obama said he’d do.

Obama talks about “fairness” based on the rate.  I guess he means fairness as measured by the percentage  of one’s income paid in taxes.   So if someone’s “rich,” in fairness, they should pay a higher percentage of their income to congress in taxes.

(Just as an aside, hasn’t he ever heard of a volume discount?  I guess not.)

So, let’s look at this.  A secretary making say $60,000 a year pays 25% of her income in income taxes.  Say she has NO deductions, that’s  $15,o00.  Well that sounds really awful.  That’s a lot of money to someone making that kind of salary.  That DOES sound unfair.  Actually, it pisses me off that ANYONE would think that this is ok.  It is oppressive!

Okay, so here’s what we do.  Her boss he makes $95,000 a year, PLUS he gets some kind of stock bonus thingy that resulted in a $ 10,000 capital gain.  So at 15% capital gains tax he pays $1500 of that plus his $26,600 in income tax @ 28%.   To be fair to her, let’s raise his capital gains to 28% too!  So, now he pays almost $3000 in CG taxes.  She’s all better now!  Don’t you see how that’s better for her?  He paid $29,900, that’s better for her, he is more oppressed, so she is less oppressed.

This kind of “logic” is what seemingly governs liberal tax policy.  It’s not really about fairness though.  Look, if I bash your mouth and bust half your teeth out (that kind of sound like a 25% tax rate, close enough for me anyway), will you feel better if I do the same thing to someone else AND poke one of his eyes out too?    Is that MORE FAIR to you?  THAT’S NUTS.  More fair would be to NOT bash your mouth!

So, it’s not about raising revenue, cause lower rates do that.  It’s not about fairness,  ’cause if it was, they would REDUCE the secretary’s rate.

Their “logic” does not hold up for even more extreme examples.  A hedge fund manager who makes $200,000 in salary and then pulls in say $1,000,000 in CG will pay $70,000 in income taxes and at 15% CG tax, $150,000 into the federal coffers.  If he pays $280,000 in CG tax, does that really lessen her burden?

Watch this video about the nature of actual tax revenues.

I don’t know about you, but I am forced to conclude that liberal tax policy is simply and only about taking money from the rich.  Sure, the libs will throw it around, try to look humanitarian and helpful.   But that is just a facade.

They, the rich, are just not supposed to have that much money.  If liberals really cared about the secretary, they’d just reduce her rate.  If they wanted to really fund all their wonderful programs fully from which the secretary might in fact benefit,  they’d adjust the rate to MAXIMIZE revenue.  But, they don’t want to do that.   The bottom line is this.  They just don’t think anyone has a right to that much money (however much “that” is).  And it’s the liberal’s moral responsibility to take it from them.

So, as the budget debate heats up, don’t be fooled.  When it comes to taxes, the libs really only care THE MOST about one thing.  To make the rich less so.


Please comment.  Click on the title and scroll down for the comment field.  I reply to ALL comments.

I am particularly interested to hear if you like videos included on the blog.

Actually, I want to hear anything you have to say.

Email me at

“Like” me on Facebook at

Get a free copy of the U.S. Constitution at

Now, there are things we all enjoy in life.  Those little luxuries and indulgences that put some joy and excitement into what can often be routine and mundane.  Like a cup of Starbucks.

But let’s say, oops  the tranny blows out on the family car.  $2500 on a credit card and NUTS, now my budget is a lot tighter.  Darn it, darn car.  But what are you going to do?

Well, being a financial whiz, I figure out that I spend $3.95  5 days a week for my half-caffe, double, mocha latte espresso hot damn delicious cup o’ joe at the Starbucks en route to my job.  Well, hell, that’s  $80.00 a month for a really fine cup of coffee.  But, it is only coffee.

So, manly man that I am, I decide, I can go without that delight for maybe a year or so, until I get a raise or pull in some cash and get this financial strain behind me.  I used to make coffee  at home.  I think I remember how.  If not, I can look it up on the internet.   If  I put some sugar in it and whipped cream on top,  it’ll be cheap, DELICIOUS and fiscal equilibrium can be restored.  And, really I could still have a Starbucks  once in a while.  I’m not going under financially or anything.  Just tight.

See, when it’s your OWN money and you can’t take it from someone else or print it and you really do have to answer to someone if you can’t make your obligations, well, you can give up a cup of Starbucks.

Well, apparently Obama cannot even do that.

Federal spending is sooooo out of control.  We are, in fact, going under as a nation.  Did you watch that video?  Here’s another one with Obama’s Secretary of the Treasury.

How is THIS responsible government?

I hear many knowledgeable people saying that we’re printing lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of money to keep up with the outflow.  Some say that could cause MASSIVE inflation.  Last I checked, that could make my Starbucks cost maybe $5.00 or $6.00.  Worse, a gallon of gas could cost that much, (hmm, Starbucks or gas, choices, choices)  That’s not gooooood.  THAT’S NOT GOOD AT ALL!

Now Fed Chairman, Bernanke, figures that this inflation will offset equally devastating deflation.  It’s kind of like if you lose your right arm, you should cut off your left leg so you’re, you know, balanced.  Yeah, it’s like that.

Instead of playing financial Russian roulette with our foreseeable future, can’t we rein in the spending, even as much as an analogical, metaphorical trip to Starbucks?

Can it be that all that spending is all absolutely vital and must be done or we’ll  just shrivel up and die or whatever?  Will the Republic cease if ANY federal spending ceases.  I really find that hard to accept.  I think anybody that has to manage a household or run a business would find it hard to accept as well.

As a matter of fact, we often find just the opposite.  When we get our own spending under control, we feel less stress.  There is less domestic discord. We can usually focus on what’s truly important to us.  In time with discipline we have some extra money for a little fun or ease.  It really comes down to priorities.

When the money is not yours and you don’t earn it.  When you have the power by force of law to take it (or print it).  When you can jail someone if they refuse to give you or try to get out of giving you their money, well then, I guess you don’t have to decide on priorities.   At least, that is how this administration is acting.   Although Obama’s administration is potentially the worst in this regard, when I checked not one administration since Roosevelt reduced the debt.

So, who’s up for some Starbucks?

Ahhhh, I like the whipped cream on top.


To comment, click on the post title and scroll down to the comment section.

My email address is

My Facebook page is

Thank you for your support!

Walter E. Williams professor of economics at George Mason University

In the article above, esteemed economist, Walter E. Williams asks, “Why do Egyptians do well when they move to the U.S. but not in their own country?”

The article linked above is worth a solid read.  It is not that our system is entirely unique.  It is that our system has been the most accessible to anyone who could by hook or crook come here.

The redistributionist mentality ignores these simple truths over and over.  They decry economic inequity and clamor for social justice.  And their solution is ALWAYS punish those that are doing things right and well.

The recent news from Egypt makes a lot of noise over freedom and democracy.  However, Mr. Williams makes the case that unless property rights can be established and protected, there is little chance the Egyptians can truly enjoy the benefits of liberty.  Property rights (for others of course) are not a high priority in the progressive mentality.

Please comment below.  Also, you can bring this blog right to your email by signing up over to the right.


To comment, click on the title and scroll down to the comment field.

Join me on Facebook at

Statesman and oh, I don't know, polictical prophet

Thomas Jefferson was a very remarkable man who started learning very early in life and never stopped.

At 5, began studying under his cousin’s tutor.

At 9, studied Latin, Greek and French.

At 14, studied classical literature and additional languages.

At 16, entered the College of William and Mary.

At 19, studied Law for 5 years starting under George Wythe.

At 23, started his own law practice.

At 25, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.

At 31, wrote the widely circulated “Summary View of the Rights of British America” and retired from his law practice.

At 32, was a Delegate to the Second Continental Congress.

At 33, wrote the Declaration of Independence.

At 33, took three years to revise Virginias legal code and wrote a Public Education bill and a statute for Religious Freedom.

At 36, was elected the second Governor of Virginia succeeding Patrick Henry.

At 40, served in Congress for two years.

At 41, was the American minister to France and negotiated commercial treaties with European nations along with Ben Franklin and John Adams.

At 46, served as the first Secretary of State under George Washington.

At 53, served as Vice President and was elected president of the American Philosophical Society.

At 55, drafted the Kentucky Resolutions and became the active head of Republican Party.

At 57, was elected the third president of the United States.

At 60, obtained the Louisiana Purchase doubling the nation’s size.

At 61, was elected to a second term as President.

At 65, retired to Monticello.

At 80, helped President Monroe shape the Monroe Doctrine.

At 81, almost single-handedly created the University of Virginiaand served as its first president.

At 83, died on the 50th anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence along with John Adams

Thomas Jefferson knew because he himself studied the previous failed attempts at government.  He understood actual history, the nature of God, his laws and the nature of man.  That happens to be way more than what most understand today. Jefferson really knew his stuff.

A voice from the past to lead us in the future:
John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the white House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement: “This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in
Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.
Thomas Jefferson

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes.  A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.  If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property – until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

We could use a man like Jefferson RIGHT NOW!


To comment, click on the title of the article and scroll down to the comment field.

You can join me on Facebook at