Random rant

When the government can force you to buy insurance and penalize you when you don't, what can't it make you do? There are no hard and fast limits any more, our law is no longer founded on any principles, the constitution is meaningless, and government will do what it deems is best for you. Get used to it and get your bribe money handy.

On a brighter note, part of me is happy about all this. Sometimes it can be fun to watch the world burn, especially by its own doing.

In other news...

Democratic ads claim Republican opponents want to raise your taxes. The attacks by Democrat Mark Critz are blatantly false. Yes, his opponent is in favor of raising income taxes, to OFFSET other taxes, leaving on net everything UNCHANGED. To claim his opponent is for raising taxes is a blatant misrepresentation and an outright lie. Not surprisingly, when I was in Texas I saw the exact same attack by a democrat against another republican.

Speaking of liars...

Obama and the liberals' health care plan is the biggest of them all but conservatives ought to be careful in their line of attack. Saying we can't afford another entitlement as the justification for rejecting Obamacare implies that if we could afford it, it would be OK. Here's a better line of attack:

Only charlatans and liars need 2,700 words to tell the truth. Learn how to save your health care at: www.newliberaldemocrat.blogspot.com

Taxes aren't so bad after all?

Here is a fascinating letter to the editor from the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

Tax hike plan reflective of taxable income

As a tax preparer, I am compelled to correct a common misconception held by state politicians, by a May 12 letter writer and now by the Wall Street Journal ("Democrats always want higher taxes," Opinion Exchange, May 13).

The misconception is usually a variation of this thought: "It would be unwise to raise taxes on incomes over $200,000 because that would include most farmers and small businesses. Because small business creates most jobs, to raise their taxes would be a jobs killer."

Taxpayers do not pay taxes on their income. Taxes are paid on taxable income, or income after tax deductions. A small business may have income of $500,000, but taxable income of less than $75,000. By the time a small business arrives at taxable income, it has already taken deductions for all business expenses, which include employee wages and all payroll expenses. If a small business has a taxable income of more than $200,000, that taxable income is no different from that of a wage-earner employee who has a taxable income above $200,000. By the time a small-business taxpayer arrives at taxable income, he or she has already hired (and will receive a tax deduction for) every employee needed. To reduce taxes at this point will neither encourage nor discourage small businesses to hire additional employees.

There is no rational explanation why a small-business owner should pay a lower tax rate on taxable income than a wage earner or investor or any other taxable income earner.

JOHN DEITERING, HOWARD LAKE, MINN.

The letter is completely correct in the technical sense but if you read carefully, you'll realize that what he is really saying doesn't make any common sense. Taxes on small business profits (or as this person calls them - taxable income) is indeed no different than taxes on a wage earner. In fact, a wage earner is nothing more than a very small business owner with 1 employee, selling his product - labor - for a profit. What would happen if you confiscated his profits? He would work less of course.

The assumption in this letter is that employing people is some sort of public service, it is not. The only reason businesses hire anyone is to profit off of their labor, and taxing that profit is a sure fire way to guarantee less job creation.

Your employer wants to pay you more!

There are issues, many of them, which are winners for our side. Not only winners, but no person in good conscience (even liberals) could truly be against them. They are intuitively good and they happen to support our cause. These are the issues we should advocate. These are the issues we should bludgeon our opponents with. And these issues will make a difference.

Payroll taxes. Every day, as loud as we can, we should advocate changing Federal law so that an employer cannot pay taxes on an employees behalf. We are for transparency and we think people should be aware of how much they are actually paying in taxes. Currently, Social Security and Medicare (known as FICA) taxes are withheld from your pay at a rate of 6.2% and 1.45% respectively. This is a lie. Let me repeat, THIS IS A LIE and anyone who doesn't acknowledge this is a liar and should be labeled as such. The real figure everyone pays in taxes (except ironically the very rich) is 12.4% in Social Security and 2.9% in Medicare for a total of 15.3%. This applies to anyone who works for a living no matter how small their paycheck is.

Why the deception? Because if you never see the money taken from you, you won't protest. It's just that simple. Government wants your money and they don't want to ask you, more importantly, they don't want you asking questions. So they have your employer give them your money without your knowledge. This is immoral and no one should support it. If the government wants your money then they should at least have the decency to ask you for it. That's a winning argument for us and every working person in this country.

Liars

Transparency:

• a : free from pretense or deceit : frank


• b : easily detected or seen through : obvious


• c : readily understood


• d : characterized by visibility or accessibility of information especially concerning business practices

I assume it's safe to say that non-transparent is not "free from pretense or deceit", and I would argue that deliberately making things non-transparent, deliberately deceiving is also known as lying.

I am for transparency, I am for the truth, and I oppose anyone, for any purpose who proposes schemes designed to mislead people, to trick them into believing something that isn't true. Liberals are lying to you, plain and simple and we need to call them liars at every opportunity. Exposing hypocrisy is not enough, pointing out logical flaws in their arguments is not enough; these tactics presume your opponents aren't deliberately lying to achieve their aims: they are.

When your opponent fights dirty, you call them out. You tell the truth about what their plan will do and that they KNOW it. You call them the liars they are and let the public decide. They will make the right choice.

We know prosperity

I read somewhere that high unemployment is here to stay and I couldn't help but think just how startling and scary that is. I was born in 1977 and throughout my short life I haven't really seen an economic climate as bad as this one. I know there have been worse, the Great Depression, Stagflation of the 1970's, and I am sure others, but to experience this is surreal. I am lucky that I have a job and I don't do well, but I get by. However, 9.7% unemployment is substantial and all I hear is pessimism coming from all sides. It doesn't have to be that way and I think a moment of optimism is in order.

First, to borrow from Rahm Emanuel, let's not let a crisis go to waste. The simple reality is that limited government conservatives and libertarians know the path to prosperity and it's not difficult. Reduce government spending, simplify and reduce the tax code, and stop f*cking with monetary policy and all will be well. Not only will we be well, we will be even richer than we are today and we will unleash a firestorm of future prosperity. It's that simple, the dynamism of the private sector can overcome anything as long as it is allowed to. Conservatives should not sit idly by and allow liberals to escape their fiscal incompetence. They don't know how to create prosperity, they know how to squander it. We know prosperity and let it be our rallying cry this November.

Sinners into saints

I was listening to Rush and he made a great point which I have to pass along. He was talking about the hypocrisy of liberals (no surprise there) and referring to the current treatment of Goldman Sachs employees and how they are portrayed as greedy, selfish, villainous thieves robbing this country blind. Then he openly wondered why it's the case that when these people go from working at Goldman Sachs to working for the government, the very same people are instantly transformed into selfless saints working for the public good, protecting us from the villainous thieves. Good point. For the record, former Goldman employees:

Jon Corzine - Chairman and CEO, Democratic Governor of New Jersey

Henry Paulson - Chairman and CEO, United States Treasury Secretary under Obama

Robert Rubin - 26 years at Goldman Sachs, member of the board and served as Co-chairman, United States Treasury Secretary under Clinton

The tax man is coming

The one saving grace of the income tax is that there is a natural counterweight to excessive taxation. The more progressive the tax rate, the more you penalize the productive, the so called "rich", the more incentive you give these people to just stay home.

As a result, a progressive income tax is a very poor way to collect revenue. The marginal income which is taxed the most is also the very same income which can be most easily forgone. What's the difference really between $400,000 and $500,000, or better yet $1,000,000 and $1,100,000? People who earn these wages place a lower value on each marginal dollar and this means that they are more willing than most to give that dollar up, especially when the government takes a bigger and bigger bite out of it.

In order for government to raise a lot more revenue, it cannot do it by taxing those who are easily able to live on less (because they will); government must dip into the pockets of those who really need those dollars and cannot afford to just stay home (also known as the middle class). Excessive government spending means excessive taxes and anyone who thinks only the rich will finance it are sorely mistaken.

It's the environment stupid!

One thing striking to me, is that as society progresses we become more and more liberal. Attitudes which would have once been thought unthinkable are now accepted without batting an eye. Tea Party protests aside (and those are in reality very minor), no one is seriously arguing for the dismantling of the welfare state. From its far left perch, the press paints the continuation of the status quo as a vast right wing conspiracy, likening the pausing of the liberal agenda to the reinstatement of Jim Crow. Regardless, the evidence is clear, we are and have been moving leftward and my question is why?

The reason is not reason, logic, or argumentation. Liberalism, it is widely acknowledged, ran out of ideas long ago and what can only be described as twisted irony, the only place it wants to progress is to the 1930's. Liberalism is triumphing because our environment gives rise to liberalism. The free market has succeeded in reducing the cost of liberalism, making it plausible for health care to be a "right", and giving credence to the ridiculous idea that not all work is "dignified".

Each and every one of us came to our beliefs not by rational choice nor deliberation, but because of our nature and the environment which surrounds us. Reason and deliberation came after we already thought the way we do and when we found others whose logic and reason was compelling, we embraced them because they confirmed our existing beliefs. We never needed convincing.

The danger of the welfare state is not that it takes unfairly from some to give to undeserving others. The danger is that the welfare state creates an environment which degrades everyone through perverse incentives. Incentives which degrade work and self reliance as "undignified", implying that living parasitically off your fellow man is dignified.

Altering the current situation requires convincing your fellow man to change, and I argue this cannot be done through logic and reason because you were not convinced through logic and reason. The only successful strategy is to change his environment, to change his incentives, thereby causing him to convince himself.

Principles or progress?

I think school vouchers are a wonderful idea. Parents, on behalf of their children, ought to be able to send their kids to the school of their choice. This simple act introduces competition into public education, and allows children to escape failing schools. There's a catch however, not all children have loving parents, and some of those parents won't do what's best for their children. These kids will be left behind and that's unfortunate.

What's more unfortunate, is that many of us would sacrifice a better educational system because it doesn't aspire to perfection. Because there are children, who we acknowledge will be left behind, the system is unacceptable. Is it rational to sacrifice a better educational system because it isn't perfect? Of course not, no system will ever be perfect and it's a sad reality that the current system fails too many.

When I talk to fellow liberty minded individuals, they often play into the same fallacy. While I advance school vouchers, their ideal is the federal governments complete retreat from education. To them, the federal government has no business involving itself in your child's education and any involvement is a violation of your liberty. You know what, they may be right, but being right is not all it's cracked up to be.

We don't live in an ideal state, we live in the present, imperfections and all. And in my mind the only judge of progress is whether tomorrow is closer to our ideal than today. Don't let rigid adherence to idealistic principles blind you to a better tomorrow.

Words Matter

We all know the New York Times is nuts, but what is most enlightening about this article are the words used to frame the issue. If you ever had a doubt about liberal bias and how the way something is described indicates that bias, this article is case and point (emphasis mine):

The Department of Labor has begun a long-overdue campaign to protect workers’ rights, a core part of its job that was sorely neglected in the fiercely antiregulatory Bush era...

...

The workers — many undocumented immigrants — told of employers who ignored the minimum wage, denied overtime, illegally docked their pay for the cost of tools or transportation, or forced them to work without pay before or after their shifts. More than a quarter had been paid less than the minimum wage, often by more than $1 an hour. Violations typically robbed workers of $51 a week, from an average paycheck of $339.

The new campaign rightly points out that all workers, including the undocumented, deserve to be paid for their labor. These are truths too often forgotten. If you work in this country, you are protected by its laws. And if unscrupulous employers can exploit the most vulnerable employees, no workers are safe....

Does it even need to be said that undocumented=illegal. Why it isn't said is because the New York Times supports illegal immigration and they are afraid that by describing these workers as what they are, this might actually put some people off.

And of course Bush (and conservatives in general) are "fiercely" against any sort of regulation. Didn't you know that eight year olds were working 70 hours a week in the evil reign of Bush? Thank g-d Obama changed all that and brought hope to undocumented toddlers everywhere.

But more striking is that without an once of irony, they cite the laws of this country while implicitly advocating the flouting of our laws. I don't believe in the exploitation of people either, but maybe these people wouldn't be exploited if they didn't live in the shadows because they were here illegally. Just a thought.

Oh, and those "unscrupulous" employers, the ones who provide legitimate work for these "undocumented" workers, the same work which entices people to break our laws, leave their loved ones, and risk everything for a better life, pure evil I tell you. But if you don't believe me, just do a little math and figure the outrageously low wage they are paying: $339/40hrs = $8.47/hr, and the minimum wage: $7.25/hr.

Who's against a little liberty

Why do liberals insist that the entire country, every single American, adopt their version of health care reform? It just seems odd that liberals would not, no could not, be satisfied with socialized medicine in Massachusetts, California, New York, or any other number of liberal bastions. Why can't there be one, ONE state without socialized medicine?

What about education? Why is the federal government involved in education at all? Is not each state capable of educating its citizens? And if the state fails at that task, then cannot the parents move to another state, one better for their children?

What about social security? Social security takes from one set of tax payers (the young) and gives to another (the old). Is a state not capable of this miraculous feat?

What about welfare? Again we take from one set of citizens (the "rich") and give to another (the poor). Are you telling me that only the Federal government can do this? Californians are too stupid?

There is no reason these things must be done at the federal level. The only reason is that if done at the state level, people just might choose not to participate, and that's the real sin. The real sin is giving up control over other people's lives.

I have heard from my liberal friends that if we do things at the state level, then people may be "stuck" and cannot afford to leave. Perhaps the local school is bad, we can't let people stay in that situation, we must impose federal standards and bring them up to par. This is a valid concern, but it weighs a hypothetical concern with a stark reality: you are forcing your views on unwilling people. That immediate immorality doesn't seem to stack up with their hypothetical immorality.

Here's my proposal. Let's move more functions to the state. Functions which in essence take money from one group and give to another don't require the federal Leviathan. And if there are people who wish to move but can't, then let's give them the money to move.

So I ask anyone, liberals included, why can't we adopt a proposal like this? All I'm asking for is just a little bit of liberty and moving costs.

The law's intent

I was watching a C-span debate between Justice Scalia and Breyer about various aspects of the law. Breyer made a very interesting, and scary, point about how judges ought to handle ambiguity and impreciseness in laws. To illustrate, he talked about a case where the intention of a law is circumvented by strict adherence to the law. The intention may be that wages are fair, but because of impreciseness in the language, wages are unfair even though the law is followed to a T. In Breyer's opinion, when ruling in these types of situations, judges ought to take into account the intention, fair wages, and base their decision off of that. In essence, amending the law to "fill in the gaps". This is dangerous.

Think about this: you want to follow the law; you adhere to the law; but if you fail to anticipate what someone intended instead of what the law states, you could be breaking the law. This is a perversion of justice. It is not the responsibility of an individual to behave as one thinks he ought to behave. He must live by the rules of the game, and those rules are written down for everyone to see. Rules which no one knows, which are intentional, are not rules that can or should be enforced.

Breyers is trying to use the wrong tool for his purpose. Law by it's very definition is imprecise, lacking. It cannot account for all possibilities. It is not a means for codifying intentions and desires. You cannot write a law that states society will be fair and judges ought not whimsically attempt the practice of engineering a fair society. They should interpret the law.

Or What!

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
- George Washington

I can't help but be amazed at liberals. Their trademark is their concern for their fellow man, yet beneath every policy to aid their fellow man lurks a very real threat of violence against him.

How can this be? First, I don't think these people connect their ends with the means necessary to achieve them and they don't see what it is that they actually support. Politicians tell them that reality can be bent, that we can have our cake and eat it too. Politician is a synonym for liar. There is no free lunch, ever.

To get universal health care we are forcing people to purchase a product they do not want. And ask yourself what the consequence of disobedience is? This is what I wish my liberal friends would see. What happens when you don't purchase health care, and you don't pay the fine? Will the government throw up their hands and move on? No, they will send the police, and throw you in jail.

That is not trivial. Your refusal to acquiesce to someone else's desires, your peaceful resistance will be met with violence. And I cannot believe that the very same people so concerned with the planet and humanity at large, can be so indifferent to the fate of one individual.

Truthfully, I believe my liberal friends would be horrified at crimes committed against the individual. And in a way, the individual's lack of resistance has spared them the reality of their position. One day however, and that day may be nearer than we think, the individual will resist, and then the true ugliness of their position will be revealed. Let's hope that day never comes.

Democracy, who needs it?

The fraud of modern day liberalism is their supposed deference to the will of the majority. TODAY, most Americans oppose the health care legislation about to be rammed down our throat. Does this make any difference to liberals in congress? Do they care that if elections were held today, we would throw the bums out?

Governance should not blindly follow the will of the majority. That's why the founders set up a Republic instead of a democracy. But whenever you have popular outrage over a piece of legislation, the gentlemanly thing to do would be to pause, take a breath, and do nothing. The beauty of conservatism is that it breeds cautiousness; it states that in the face of the unknown it's okay to be as we are today. Because today is pretty darn good. Liberalism is a doctrine of bold ambition for an ideal tomorrow. And it doesn't matter if the people want it or not, their going to get it. More than anything this health care debate has shown that liberalism only defers to democracy when democracy defers to it. So much for the will of the people...

Education for the masses?

The recent hubbub over Texas modifying their education curriculum has exposed a more fundamental problem. Proponents see this change as returning education to a more balanced perspective, removing what they see (rightly) as liberal bias in education. Opponents see this as a regression, away from universal truth and a march towards intellectual decline.

But the problem has nothing to do with whether or not the Texas authorities bless the right curriculum. Invariably, any curriculum is open to criticism. Someone, somewhere, is bound to disagree with what is being taught. There is no universal educational truth.

In a free market consumers decide which services serve them best. Education is just another service, and it's function is to educate children, and because they are children their parents decide.

Conservatives should bemoan Texas for legitimizing an illegitimate concept: Some group of people know what's better for you than you do. They don't. Let parents decide what curriculum their children ought to learn by giving parents the wherewithall to consume the education of their choice.