The premise that we should fire an entire educational staff from top to bottom makes no sense when I'm sure the issue of a lack of parent involvement with regard to failing students is probably non-existent.
If we accept this premise so should we be able to accept the premise that we fire everyone that has failed the American people by running agencies into deficit.
Such as:
Social Security
The Post Office
Amtrack
Medicare
Medicaid
FDMC and FNMA (Two entities that were mandated by Janet Reno by pain of prosecution to force banks to loan to people who otherwise did not qualify by industry standards.)
Car companies
Banks
When the government achieves solvency then it may feel free to address most of the educators in this nation who work tirelessly to overcome the battles our kids suffer today with serious home-life problems.
Then discuss my students at Davie; some raped, molested, abandoned, whose parents may be rightly sentenced to prison; whose parents may (and probably do) abuse drugs and alcohol; parents who never come to a conference or can not speak English although they have lived in this country for many years.
Let's work together to replace this Congress and "The One" and the travesty they provide our educational system with the simple sanity of common sense.
[Submitted by Ruthie]
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Presidential Hindsight
A year ago, a newly elected President Obama enjoyed a 68 percent public approval rating. There were substantial Democratic majorities in both houses of the Congress. Presidential press conferences were little more than media love-fests. Apparently there was no need to reach out, when a bold, new liberal agenda for the country seemed a sure thing.
But now? Obama consistently polls below 50 percent. The Senate super-majority was lost with the stunning win of Republican Scott Brown in liberal Massachusetts. A grassroots conservative tea-party movement helped put Republican governors in Virginia and New Jersey. And polls show that the November 2010 elections might result in the largest Democratic setback in a generation, with possible losses of both houses of Congress.
Pundits of both parties now fault Obama’s style of governance. Public protests express disapproval over out-of-control federal spending and borrowing, and the idea of state-run health care.
So fairly or not, it seems like a panicked President Obama is abruptly scrambling to do what he should have done over a year ago.
But now? Obama consistently polls below 50 percent. The Senate super-majority was lost with the stunning win of Republican Scott Brown in liberal Massachusetts. A grassroots conservative tea-party movement helped put Republican governors in Virginia and New Jersey. And polls show that the November 2010 elections might result in the largest Democratic setback in a generation, with possible losses of both houses of Congress.
Pundits of both parties now fault Obama’s style of governance. Public protests express disapproval over out-of-control federal spending and borrowing, and the idea of state-run health care.
So fairly or not, it seems like a panicked President Obama is abruptly scrambling to do what he should have done over a year ago.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Presidential Pretzel Logic
The idea that government spending creates jobs makes sense only if you never ask where the government got the money. It didn’t fall from the sky. The only way Congress can inject spending into the economy is by first taxing or borrowing it out of the economy. No new demand is created; it’s a zero-sum transfer of existing demand.
The One says the $300 billion spent from the stimulus thus far has financed as many as 2 million jobs. Maybe. However, the private sector now has $300 billion less to spend, which, by the same logic, means it must lose the same number of jobs, leaving a net employment impact of zero. But the One’s single-entry bookkeeping simply ignores that side of the equation.
The One says the $300 billion spent from the stimulus thus far has financed as many as 2 million jobs. Maybe. However, the private sector now has $300 billion less to spend, which, by the same logic, means it must lose the same number of jobs, leaving a net employment impact of zero. But the One’s single-entry bookkeeping simply ignores that side of the equation.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Plumbing Problems
Joe "the plumber" thinks he was used by Obama and McCain? Join the club, my friends.
Change We Can Believe In!
Please join us for an afternoon with
RHODE ISLAND’S NEXT ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIK WALLIN
Saturday, February 27, 2010
3:00pm – 5:00pm
At the home of Garret Roberts
223 Hull Cove Farm Road
Jamestown, RI 02835
Beer, wine & appetizers will be served.
Please RSVP by February 26th to Garret’s assistant Audrey
(401) 884-8701
RHODE ISLAND’S NEXT ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIK WALLIN
Saturday, February 27, 2010
3:00pm – 5:00pm
At the home of Garret Roberts
223 Hull Cove Farm Road
Jamestown, RI 02835
Beer, wine & appetizers will be served.
Please RSVP by February 26th to Garret’s assistant Audrey
(401) 884-8701
42
One thing that strikes me about Evan Bayh's decision is that the GOP no longer has 41 votes. They have 42.
Bayh obviously has his eye on something beyond spending time with his family. Be it a presidential run or a gubernatorial run, there is no way he'll vote for the Obamacare measures Reid and Pelosi have been pushing.
In fact, he's very likely to swing more rightward in his votes until the day his seat is open.
We live in interesting times. More often than not, that's a curse. Right now it is a blessing.
Bayh obviously has his eye on something beyond spending time with his family. Be it a presidential run or a gubernatorial run, there is no way he'll vote for the Obamacare measures Reid and Pelosi have been pushing.
In fact, he's very likely to swing more rightward in his votes until the day his seat is open.
We live in interesting times. More often than not, that's a curse. Right now it is a blessing.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
A Patchwork Orange (con't.)
The retirement of Patrick Kennedy has struck a chord with many. While conservatives are happy to see a liberal pack his bags, pangs of melancholy for the man persist.
There is a sense that the young congressman never really “fit in” in Washington.
That’s no excuse for his mistakes and vitriol learned all too well from his father (see: Thomas, Clarence; Bork, Robert etal.)
Fifty years after JFK was elected president, we may, finally, be seeing an end to a strange political malady that afflicted not only Patrick, but his father, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy.
Garry Wills wrote an excellent book about it, and its title says it all: The Kennedy Imprisonment: A Meditation on Power (1981). Ted, Wills writes, was fine with keeping “alive some memories,” but seemed to “dwindle beside the shadowy evocations.”
Ted, Wills concludes — and, we argue, Patrick — ultimately was “at his best when he is not running.” A “sense of freedom” grew “on him as his chances faded.”
Wills, of course, was writing about Kennedy’s 1980 presidential campaign, but he could have been describing the son circa 2010.
Kennedy, Wills continues, “performed his best when he was showing his mettle as a survivor, not bidding to take over.
Forced by fame, by his name, toward power, he tightens up.
Allowed to back off, he relaxes.
This is not surrender. . ."He seems to be acquiring a sense of power’s last paradox — that it is most a prison when one thinks of it as a passepartout. When one thinks of it as a prison, one is already partway free.”
Today, in his own way, Patrick Kennedy is “partway free."
There is a sense that the young congressman never really “fit in” in Washington.
That’s no excuse for his mistakes and vitriol learned all too well from his father (see: Thomas, Clarence; Bork, Robert etal.)
Fifty years after JFK was elected president, we may, finally, be seeing an end to a strange political malady that afflicted not only Patrick, but his father, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy.
Garry Wills wrote an excellent book about it, and its title says it all: The Kennedy Imprisonment: A Meditation on Power (1981). Ted, Wills writes, was fine with keeping “alive some memories,” but seemed to “dwindle beside the shadowy evocations.”
Ted, Wills concludes — and, we argue, Patrick — ultimately was “at his best when he is not running.” A “sense of freedom” grew “on him as his chances faded.”
Wills, of course, was writing about Kennedy’s 1980 presidential campaign, but he could have been describing the son circa 2010.
Kennedy, Wills continues, “performed his best when he was showing his mettle as a survivor, not bidding to take over.
Forced by fame, by his name, toward power, he tightens up.
Allowed to back off, he relaxes.
This is not surrender. . ."He seems to be acquiring a sense of power’s last paradox — that it is most a prison when one thinks of it as a passepartout. When one thinks of it as a prison, one is already partway free.”
Today, in his own way, Patrick Kennedy is “partway free."
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Gorbasm
NOAA: Blizzard Rearranges Climate Change Announcement
As D.C. continued to dig out from Snowmageddon and is keeping an eye on another storm system, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was busy making a climate change announcement.
NOAA, part of the Department of Commerce, is going to be providing information to individuals and decision-makers through a new NOAA Climate Service office. “More and more, Americans are witnessing the impacts of climate change in their own backyards, including sea-level rise, longer growing seasons, changes in river flows, increases in heavy downpours, earlier snowmelt and extended ice-free seasons in our waters. People are searching for relevant and timely information about these changes to inform decision-making about virtually all aspects of their lives,” the release says.
Earlier snowmelt? That would be nice.
Turns out the release was planned prepared ahead of the snowstorm, which shut federal agencies today and forced its senders to hold a press conference by telephone instead of at the National Press Club.
As D.C. continued to dig out from Snowmageddon and is keeping an eye on another storm system, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was busy making a climate change announcement.
NOAA, part of the Department of Commerce, is going to be providing information to individuals and decision-makers through a new NOAA Climate Service office. “More and more, Americans are witnessing the impacts of climate change in their own backyards, including sea-level rise, longer growing seasons, changes in river flows, increases in heavy downpours, earlier snowmelt and extended ice-free seasons in our waters. People are searching for relevant and timely information about these changes to inform decision-making about virtually all aspects of their lives,” the release says.
Earlier snowmelt? That would be nice.
Turns out the release was planned prepared ahead of the snowstorm, which shut federal agencies today and forced its senders to hold a press conference by telephone instead of at the National Press Club.
Breaking. . .
EPW HEARINGS POSTPONED DUE TO WEATHER
UPDATE: The following Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearings have been postponed due to inclement weather this week:
- The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife, will hold a hearing entitled, "Collaborative Solutions to Wildlife and Habitat Management."
- The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works will hold a hearing entitled, "Global Warming Impacts, Including Public Health, in the United States." Once the hearings are rescheduled, information will be posted at www.epw.senate.gov
UPDATE: The following Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearings have been postponed due to inclement weather this week:
- The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife, will hold a hearing entitled, "Collaborative Solutions to Wildlife and Habitat Management."
- The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works will hold a hearing entitled, "Global Warming Impacts, Including Public Health, in the United States." Once the hearings are rescheduled, information will be posted at www.epw.senate.gov
What Goes Around. . .
Tips of the hat to RCP and Megan McArdle for unearthing these two gems.
Here is Barack Obama in a speech in 2005, calling for then-president George W. Bush to give it up on social security privatization:
"I mean, the fact of the matter is, is the president has been on his 60-day tour, and everywhere he goes the numbers just get worse. The American people have essentially voted on this proposal and really what you have is a situation now where I think that the president and the Republican Congress are going to need to figure out a way to save face and — and step back a little bit. And if — if they let go of their egos — listen, I've been on the other side of this where — particularly with my wife. (laughter) Where I've gotten in an argument and then at some point in the argument it dawns on me, you know what, I'm wrong on this one and it's — it's — it's irritating, it's frustrating. You don't want to admit it, and so to the extent that we can provide the president with a graceful mechanism to — to say we're sorry, Dear, then I think that would be — that would be helpful."
Second, a June 2005 New York Times editorial urging Bush to admit defeat in Congress and stop blaming Democratic "obstruction":
"Congressional Republicans have begun talking with top White House aides about an exit strategy — not from Iraq, but from the winless quagmire of President Bush's campaign to privatize Social Security. Mr. Bush has responded to this new political reality by, first, insisting that the American people do not yet understand the virtues of privatization, and second, blaming the failure of his deservedly unpopular plan on Congressional Democrats.
That's absurd.
After listening to Mr. Bush talk of little else during his second term, the American people understand quite well what he is proposing for Social Security, and by wide margins reject it. In fact, the polls show that the more they learn about privatization, the less they like it. . . .
Mr. Bush has reacted by railing against Democrats for obstruction — as if Democrats are duty-bound to breathe life into his agenda and, even sillier, as if opposing a plan that the people do not want is an illegitimate tactic for an opposition party."
Here is Barack Obama in a speech in 2005, calling for then-president George W. Bush to give it up on social security privatization:
"I mean, the fact of the matter is, is the president has been on his 60-day tour, and everywhere he goes the numbers just get worse. The American people have essentially voted on this proposal and really what you have is a situation now where I think that the president and the Republican Congress are going to need to figure out a way to save face and — and step back a little bit. And if — if they let go of their egos — listen, I've been on the other side of this where — particularly with my wife. (laughter) Where I've gotten in an argument and then at some point in the argument it dawns on me, you know what, I'm wrong on this one and it's — it's — it's irritating, it's frustrating. You don't want to admit it, and so to the extent that we can provide the president with a graceful mechanism to — to say we're sorry, Dear, then I think that would be — that would be helpful."
Second, a June 2005 New York Times editorial urging Bush to admit defeat in Congress and stop blaming Democratic "obstruction":
"Congressional Republicans have begun talking with top White House aides about an exit strategy — not from Iraq, but from the winless quagmire of President Bush's campaign to privatize Social Security. Mr. Bush has responded to this new political reality by, first, insisting that the American people do not yet understand the virtues of privatization, and second, blaming the failure of his deservedly unpopular plan on Congressional Democrats.
That's absurd.
After listening to Mr. Bush talk of little else during his second term, the American people understand quite well what he is proposing for Social Security, and by wide margins reject it. In fact, the polls show that the more they learn about privatization, the less they like it. . . .
Mr. Bush has reacted by railing against Democrats for obstruction — as if Democrats are duty-bound to breathe life into his agenda and, even sillier, as if opposing a plan that the people do not want is an illegitimate tactic for an opposition party."
Monday, February 8, 2010
Wounded Animals
One of the stranger behaviors of the ever-stranger Obama administration is its sudden adoption of the "wounded fawn" posture.
No opposition was more stridently critical of a sitting president than was the anti-Bush Left.
Barack Obama, as candidate and president, could not start a speech without saying "Bush did it."
Have we forgotten the 2006–08 canonization of Michael Moore, the silence about the Nazi slurs, the award-winning assassination docudramas, the Knopf novel about killing George Bush, the "General Betray Us" ad, Al Gore's vein-bulging "brownshirts" outburst, and on and on?
But suddenly pundits and politicians have embraced a new gospel about conciliation and the need to restrain harsh discourse — which is fine, but many of these advocates for a gentler, kinder dialogue were bomb-throwers just a few years ago.
And now we hear from none other than John Brennan, the Obama-administration counter-terrorism expert, who soberly sermonizes on the lamentable politicization of the war on terror, and particularly the popular derision of the decision to treat the Christmas-day airliner plot as a normal criminal-justice matter.
But isn't Brennan the same official who used to give loud political speeches, heralding not only the superior new Obama anti-terrorism methodology but also the failings of the Bush approach (which kept us safe for seven consecutive years)?
We seem to recall that Brennan recently characterized the former vice president as "ignorant."
And in August 2009, Brennan's first official speech lambasted the Bush administation ad nauseam (e.g., "The fight against terrorists and violent extremists has been returned to its right and proper place: no longer defining — indeed, distorting — our entire national security and foreign policy"; "President Obama has made it clear that the United States will not be defined simply by what we are against, but by what we are for — the opportunity, liberties, prosperity, and common aspirations we share with the world"; "Rather than looking at allies and other nations through the narrow prism of terrorism — whether they are with us or against us — the administration is now engaging other countries and peoples across a broader range of areas. Rather than treating so many of our foreign affairs programs — foreign assistance, development, democracy promotion — as simply extensions of the fight against terrorists"; "We see this new approach most vividly in the president's personal engagement with the world — his trips, his speeches, his town halls with foreign audiences"; "As many have noted, the president does not describe this as a 'war on terrorism'"; "Likewise, the president does not describe this as a 'global war'"; "Nor does President Obama see this challenge as a fight against 'jihadists.' Describing terrorists in this way — using a legitimate term, 'jihad,' meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal — risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve"; and so on).
In other words, Brennan himself was not content simply to continue America's anti-terrorism protocols, or to modify them in relative silence; instead, he chose to grandstand about the superiority of Obama's revisionist approach.
And when Obama's approach proved "problematic" — with the KSM trial, the Abdulmutallab mess, the Fort Hood massacre, the continuation of tribunals and renditions, and failed promises on Guantanamo — Brennan suddenly went from hyper-partisan to nonpartisan.
Then there is the strange case of Richard Clarke.
He too has deplored "the partisan rhetoric" about the Obama administration's anti-terrorism policies: "Recent months have seen the party out of power picking fights over the conduct of our efforts against al-Qaeda, often with total disregard to the facts and frequently blowing issues totally out of proportion, while ignoring the more important challenges we face in defeating terrorists."
This surely cannot be the same Richard Clarke who in the election year 2004 came out with his partisan exposé Against All Odds, which damned the Bush administration, after earlier delighting the D.C. press corps with wild charges that George Bush had "undermined the war on terrorism."
There is a rule of thumb with the Obama administration and its most vocal supporters: Those who loudly deplore the new partisanship and acrimony are typically those who in the past were the most partisan and acrimonious.
No opposition was more stridently critical of a sitting president than was the anti-Bush Left.
Barack Obama, as candidate and president, could not start a speech without saying "Bush did it."
Have we forgotten the 2006–08 canonization of Michael Moore, the silence about the Nazi slurs, the award-winning assassination docudramas, the Knopf novel about killing George Bush, the "General Betray Us" ad, Al Gore's vein-bulging "brownshirts" outburst, and on and on?
But suddenly pundits and politicians have embraced a new gospel about conciliation and the need to restrain harsh discourse — which is fine, but many of these advocates for a gentler, kinder dialogue were bomb-throwers just a few years ago.
And now we hear from none other than John Brennan, the Obama-administration counter-terrorism expert, who soberly sermonizes on the lamentable politicization of the war on terror, and particularly the popular derision of the decision to treat the Christmas-day airliner plot as a normal criminal-justice matter.
But isn't Brennan the same official who used to give loud political speeches, heralding not only the superior new Obama anti-terrorism methodology but also the failings of the Bush approach (which kept us safe for seven consecutive years)?
We seem to recall that Brennan recently characterized the former vice president as "ignorant."
And in August 2009, Brennan's first official speech lambasted the Bush administation ad nauseam (e.g., "The fight against terrorists and violent extremists has been returned to its right and proper place: no longer defining — indeed, distorting — our entire national security and foreign policy"; "President Obama has made it clear that the United States will not be defined simply by what we are against, but by what we are for — the opportunity, liberties, prosperity, and common aspirations we share with the world"; "Rather than looking at allies and other nations through the narrow prism of terrorism — whether they are with us or against us — the administration is now engaging other countries and peoples across a broader range of areas. Rather than treating so many of our foreign affairs programs — foreign assistance, development, democracy promotion — as simply extensions of the fight against terrorists"; "We see this new approach most vividly in the president's personal engagement with the world — his trips, his speeches, his town halls with foreign audiences"; "As many have noted, the president does not describe this as a 'war on terrorism'"; "Likewise, the president does not describe this as a 'global war'"; "Nor does President Obama see this challenge as a fight against 'jihadists.' Describing terrorists in this way — using a legitimate term, 'jihad,' meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal — risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve"; and so on).
In other words, Brennan himself was not content simply to continue America's anti-terrorism protocols, or to modify them in relative silence; instead, he chose to grandstand about the superiority of Obama's revisionist approach.
And when Obama's approach proved "problematic" — with the KSM trial, the Abdulmutallab mess, the Fort Hood massacre, the continuation of tribunals and renditions, and failed promises on Guantanamo — Brennan suddenly went from hyper-partisan to nonpartisan.
Then there is the strange case of Richard Clarke.
He too has deplored "the partisan rhetoric" about the Obama administration's anti-terrorism policies: "Recent months have seen the party out of power picking fights over the conduct of our efforts against al-Qaeda, often with total disregard to the facts and frequently blowing issues totally out of proportion, while ignoring the more important challenges we face in defeating terrorists."
This surely cannot be the same Richard Clarke who in the election year 2004 came out with his partisan exposé Against All Odds, which damned the Bush administration, after earlier delighting the D.C. press corps with wild charges that George Bush had "undermined the war on terrorism."
There is a rule of thumb with the Obama administration and its most vocal supporters: Those who loudly deplore the new partisanship and acrimony are typically those who in the past were the most partisan and acrimonious.
Care For A Cup Of Tea?
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems
and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the
Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against
inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on
appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve
Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine
Supreme Court Justices equates to 545 apparently inept selfish human
beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally and
individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this
country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that
problem was created by Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its
Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally
chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound
reason: they have no legal authority. They have no ability to
coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one
thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that
what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con
regardless of party. What separates a politician from a normal human
being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would
have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President
for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget.
He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole
responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and
approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House?
Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and
fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they
want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if
they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot
replace 545 people who stand convicted by present facts of
incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single
domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.
When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the
power of the federal government, it must follow that what exists
is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the
red.
If the military is deployed, it's because they want it deployed.
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite
retirement plan not available to "the people," it's because they want
it that way.
There are no unsolvable government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they
hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and
advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to
regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not
let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied
mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that
prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they
alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who
are their bosses.
Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel
Newspaper.
This might be funny if it weren't so darned true.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharg Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Worker's Compensation Tax
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed 100 years
ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had
absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the
world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What in the hell happened? Can you spell 'politicians?' And I still
have to 'press 1' for English?
[H/T Sheila Verdi]
and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the
Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against
inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on
appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve
Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine
Supreme Court Justices equates to 545 apparently inept selfish human
beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally and
individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this
country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that
problem was created by Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its
Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally
chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound
reason: they have no legal authority. They have no ability to
coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one
thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that
what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con
regardless of party. What separates a politician from a normal human
being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would
have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President
for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget.
He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole
responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and
approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House?
Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and
fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they
want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if
they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot
replace 545 people who stand convicted by present facts of
incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single
domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.
When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the
power of the federal government, it must follow that what exists
is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the
red.
If the military is deployed, it's because they want it deployed.
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite
retirement plan not available to "the people," it's because they want
it that way.
There are no unsolvable government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they
hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and
advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to
regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not
let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied
mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that
prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they
alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who
are their bosses.
Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel
Newspaper.
This might be funny if it weren't so darned true.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharg Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Worker's Compensation Tax
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed 100 years
ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had
absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the
world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What in the hell happened? Can you spell 'politicians?' And I still
have to 'press 1' for English?
[H/T Sheila Verdi]
A Patchwork Orange
A Rhode Island television (WPRI) station's poll shows that Kennedy is looking surprisingly vulnerable:
The poll shows 31 percent of those interviewed said they would “consider another” candidate and 28 percent said they would “vote to replace” Kennedy. Those who would re-elect the eight-term Congressman came in at 35 percent. Five percent weren’t sure.
A caveat: "The poll, conducted by Fleming & Associates for WPRI-12, interviewed 250 registered voters in Kennedy’s district and comes with a 6.2 percent margin of error." That's a bit bigger than I prefer. Interestingly, they polled Kennedy’s numbers statewide (Rhode Island has only two districts) and found that across the state, a mere 35 percent give Kennedy a favorable rating, with a 62 percent unfavorable rating; in his own district he has a 42 percent favorable and 56 percent unfavorable.
Kennedy's district has a Cook Partisan Voting Index of D+13, and Obama carried 65 percent of the vote in this district in 2008. It's tough sledding, but if the Kennedy name isn't carrying the same weight as it used to in Massachusetts, we can only wonder how effective it will be this year for a lawmaker who's a lot tougher on Capitol Hill security barriers than he is on, say, runaway spending.
But John Loughlin has some Scott-Brownian aspects of his background: was in the Army Reserves from January 1978 to November 2004, earning the rank of Lieutenant Colonel; saw duty in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1995 and 1996; former public affairs officer at NASA; runs a television production company... and spent a few years doing stand-up comedy. So unlike Kennedy, his remarks on the campaign trail will be intentionally funny.
I suppose there's always a chance that Kennedy could rehabilitate his image, but one wonders if voters will be comfortable with the same representation they have had since 1994, the distilled essence of Kennedy liberalism, at a time when the nation faces so many serious and sobering issues.
The poll shows 31 percent of those interviewed said they would “consider another” candidate and 28 percent said they would “vote to replace” Kennedy. Those who would re-elect the eight-term Congressman came in at 35 percent. Five percent weren’t sure.
A caveat: "The poll, conducted by Fleming & Associates for WPRI-12, interviewed 250 registered voters in Kennedy’s district and comes with a 6.2 percent margin of error." That's a bit bigger than I prefer. Interestingly, they polled Kennedy’s numbers statewide (Rhode Island has only two districts) and found that across the state, a mere 35 percent give Kennedy a favorable rating, with a 62 percent unfavorable rating; in his own district he has a 42 percent favorable and 56 percent unfavorable.
Kennedy's district has a Cook Partisan Voting Index of D+13, and Obama carried 65 percent of the vote in this district in 2008. It's tough sledding, but if the Kennedy name isn't carrying the same weight as it used to in Massachusetts, we can only wonder how effective it will be this year for a lawmaker who's a lot tougher on Capitol Hill security barriers than he is on, say, runaway spending.
But John Loughlin has some Scott-Brownian aspects of his background: was in the Army Reserves from January 1978 to November 2004, earning the rank of Lieutenant Colonel; saw duty in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1995 and 1996; former public affairs officer at NASA; runs a television production company... and spent a few years doing stand-up comedy. So unlike Kennedy, his remarks on the campaign trail will be intentionally funny.
I suppose there's always a chance that Kennedy could rehabilitate his image, but one wonders if voters will be comfortable with the same representation they have had since 1994, the distilled essence of Kennedy liberalism, at a time when the nation faces so many serious and sobering issues.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Observation
Anyone suppose it is about time PepsiCo resolved to reconciliation with the post-Obama logo?
Friday, February 5, 2010
Couric & Co. (Con't.)
With all the talk of corporate greed and inequality, did people like Katie Couric think that in tough times they were immune from the laws of populist outrage?
Did Couric believe that, amid significant layoffs at CBS, she could still garner pay worth 200 salaries of $75,000 in the new age of egalitarianism?
What's next?
When movies bomb, will actors' pay be presented in terms of how many cameramen could have been hired with their payouts?
What's interesting is that Obama's egalitarian "accuse" movement was largely supported by those who — logically, at least — were precisely the individuals Obama was railing against: people earning more than $200,000 a year who make x-times more than their lowly coworkers.
So, given the new mood of the country and the new tax codes on the horizon, can we expect law professors, actors, media celebs, and others gladly to pay 65 percent of their ill-gotten gains in state taxes, federal income taxes, new payroll taxes, and health-care taxes?
And can we start asking the tough questions?
For example: Why do endowed professors teach fewer classroom hours than part-timers who make one-fifth their wages?
Somehow, Obamaism convinced many that they were avatars of needed change, unlike the greedy "them," and thus were exempt from the logical consequences of their own rhetoric.
The problem, however, is that Obama's most influential base of support is "them."
This could catch on.
Imagine the possibilities: John Edwards sells his "two Americas" mansion. Al Gore gives his energy-guzzling estate over to poor environmental activists. Warren Buffet forsakes the esoteric deductions that gave him an 18 percent income-tax rate and happily starts paying 60 percent of his income as his "fair share." Bill and Melinda Gates hold back $20 billion or so from the foundation and give it to a broke treasury desperately in need of estate-tax revenue.
Did Couric believe that, amid significant layoffs at CBS, she could still garner pay worth 200 salaries of $75,000 in the new age of egalitarianism?
What's next?
When movies bomb, will actors' pay be presented in terms of how many cameramen could have been hired with their payouts?
What's interesting is that Obama's egalitarian "accuse" movement was largely supported by those who — logically, at least — were precisely the individuals Obama was railing against: people earning more than $200,000 a year who make x-times more than their lowly coworkers.
So, given the new mood of the country and the new tax codes on the horizon, can we expect law professors, actors, media celebs, and others gladly to pay 65 percent of their ill-gotten gains in state taxes, federal income taxes, new payroll taxes, and health-care taxes?
And can we start asking the tough questions?
For example: Why do endowed professors teach fewer classroom hours than part-timers who make one-fifth their wages?
Somehow, Obamaism convinced many that they were avatars of needed change, unlike the greedy "them," and thus were exempt from the logical consequences of their own rhetoric.
The problem, however, is that Obama's most influential base of support is "them."
This could catch on.
Imagine the possibilities: John Edwards sells his "two Americas" mansion. Al Gore gives his energy-guzzling estate over to poor environmental activists. Warren Buffet forsakes the esoteric deductions that gave him an 18 percent income-tax rate and happily starts paying 60 percent of his income as his "fair share." Bill and Melinda Gates hold back $20 billion or so from the foundation and give it to a broke treasury desperately in need of estate-tax revenue.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
And That's The Way It Is. . .
Drudge reports that CBS is cutting from the top to the bottom:
CBSNEWS anchorwoman and 60 MINUTES contributor Katie Couric faces a dramatic pay cut at the network, insiders tell the DRUDGE REPORT.
... "She makes enough to pay 200 news reporters $75,000 a year!" demands a veteran producer. "It's complete insanity."
... Couric's $300,000 a week paycheck has become the obsession of disgruntled CBS staff, just as deep layoffs rock the fishbowl.
CBSNEWS anchorwoman and 60 MINUTES contributor Katie Couric faces a dramatic pay cut at the network, insiders tell the DRUDGE REPORT.
... "She makes enough to pay 200 news reporters $75,000 a year!" demands a veteran producer. "It's complete insanity."
... Couric's $300,000 a week paycheck has become the obsession of disgruntled CBS staff, just as deep layoffs rock the fishbowl.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
