Congressional Research Service: HR 3200 WILL Cover Illegal Immigrants

Like I was sayin… you have to read the thing.  I was have seen serveral posts that indicate that the health care reform bill HR 3200 will cover illegal immigrants.

It seems that it is the president that is spreading myths about health care when he says that illegals will not be covered under the plan.  According to the Congressional Research Service the bill will.

I can see why the dems wanted to pass this bill as quickly as possible without giving anybody time to read it.  At some point, we have to start demanding more from our government.

We are all rich when it comes to Cap and Trade

Like I was sayin… you get what you ask for.

Everybody wants to be kind to the environment, however, some would like all Americans to pay a hidden tax to combat the specter of global warming (or climate change, the new ice age, or whatever bugaboo the climate fear-monger’s PR department is using now).

The president’s current budget depends upon and plans for vast revenues from a cap and trade program.  Some people assume that corporations will just pay these fees without passing on the expense to customers.  This is a very naive way of looking at how businesses work.

Today in the WSJ, there was a great opinion piece that lays out the ramifications for all Americans.

Hit hardest would be the “95% of working families” Mr. Obama keeps mentioning, usually omitting that his no-new-taxes pledge comes with the caveat “unless you use energy.” Putting a price on carbon is regressive by definition because poor and middle-income households spend more of their paychecks on things like gas to drive to work, groceries or home heating.

The bottom 95% of earners will not have their direct taxes raised, but rather the amount that they pay in pass through taxes.  A pass through tax is a tax that a company passes along to it’s customers.  By the way, all taxes levied on businesses are pass through taxes.

Interestingly enough, this “tax” would not be spread evenly across all Americans.  Some will be harder hit than others.

Coal provides more than half of U.S. electricity, and 25 states get more than 50% of their electricity from conventional coal-fired generation. In Ohio, it totals 86%, according to the Energy Information Administration. Ratepayers in Indiana (94%), Missouri (85%), New Mexico (80%), Pennsylvania (56%), West Virginia (98%) and Wyoming (95%) are going to get soaked.

The fact that individual Americans will be required to pay for this type of program seems to not sink in for many Americans.

Many liberal democrats have lamented the drop in oil prices which were impacting all Americans.  This cap and trade scheme put forth by the administration is an attempt to push energy prices back up.  In another opinion piece in the WSJ, Laura D’Andrea Tyson points out:

 Critics of a cap-and-trade system are correct when they claim it will raise the prices of goods and services whose production and use emit carbon. That’s exactly the point: Higher prices are necessary to encourage energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy, to discourage carbon emissions, and to reduce the societal costs of global warming.

Here again is the specter of global warming being put forth as justification for enacting policies that will be detrimental to all Americans.  The fact that global average temperatures have been dropping for the last 8 to 10 years doesn’t seem to figure into the calculation.

Slowly but surely, Americans will begin to realize the path we are headed down.  I only hope that it won’t be too late to reverse course when they do understand.

Obama: Taking aim at Success

Like I was sayin… Life is so unfair.

Unless you live under a rock, you have heard that the Obama administration has put a cap on salaries for executives of companies that get a bailout from the tax payer.  This cap is currently set at $500k.

It would seem to make sense that if somebody so badly manages a company that the tax payers have to bail the company out, those managers shouldn’t be rewarded for failure.  Most people get rewarded when they do a good job and get penalized for a poor job.  I agree that those companies that need help should be penalized.

However, I am concerned about some of the things that Obama said during the announcement of the cap.  In part of the speech Obama says:

For top executives to award themselves these kinds of compensation packages in the midst of this economic crisis is not only in bad taste — it’s a bad strategy — and I will not tolerate it as president.

This part of the speech is of particularly great concern.  It is aimed not at executives at failing companies, but executives at successful companies that have very generous compensation packages.  And as president, Obama will not tolerate it.

As a free market-capitalism loving American, I am very concerned about he ramifications of what can happen next.  I would hate to think that I live in a country that believes that if the economy is in recession, it is wrong for me to make a lot of money. 

Again, I don’t take issue with penalizing the managers of companies that need to be bailed out, but it would seem that Obama is indicating that further changes are needed to executive compensation in America.

Finally, these guidelines we’re putting in place are only the beginning of a long-term effort. We’re going to examine the ways in which the means and manner of executive compensation have contributed to a reckless culture and quarter-by-quarter mentality that in turn have wrought havoc in our financial system. We’re going to be taking a look at broader reforms so that executives are compensated for sound risk management and rewarded for growth measured over years, not just days or weeks.

“This is only the beginning of a long-term effort…”  It would seem as though Obama believes that the government should decide how executives are compensated rather than the owners of the companies.  Is this the first step in the long march toward the government deciding what pay scales are correct for which jobs?

We should all be concerned that one day the government may take an interest in how much each one of us makes each year and deciding what is fair.

Obama and the Incredible Shrinking Tax Base

Like I was sayin… soon there will be a new minority.

Both candidates are pitching major changes to the tax code.  Both candidates paint each others tax plans as bad.  However, the devil is often in the details.

One thing that I have always believed is that taxes need to be fair.  The very poor shouldn’t be overly taxed, but neither should anybody else.  Senator Obama and the democrats believe otherwise.

Senator Obama continues to push that he is cutting taxes for 95% of Americans.  Firstly, only 62% of Americans actually pay income and payroll taxes.  Take out the evil top 5% and you are left with tax cuts for only 57% of Americans.  Secondly, the Obama plan doesn’t cut anybodies taxes.  His plan only increases tax credits and refundable items.  Tax credits are different than cutting the rates.

Tax credits work like this: suppose based on my income I owe $10,000 in taxes.  With kids and other exemptions, I might have $6,000 in tax credits.  That means that I end up only owing $4,000.  If my with-holding from my paycheck totals to $7,000, then I get a refund of $3,000.

Now lets say that I make a lot less and everything else is the same.  I owe $0 in taxes based upon my income, but I still have $6,000 in credits.  The IRS then sends me a check for $6,000 (plus anything that might have been withheld.  If the government took $2,000 out of my paycheck, then I get a check back for $8,000.  There are many people in America who pay no income or payroll taxes, but get tax refunds under the current plan.  Under Obama’s plan, those who pay no taxes will get more back.  In effect, they are taxing me to give it to somebody else.  That’s what’s called “spreading the wealth around”.

In addition, Chuck Rangle the chairman of the house Ways and Means commitee is proposing an additional “surtax” on those making over $200k.  That would push marginal tax rates on those making over $250k close to 50%.  That means on that 250,001st dollar, you get to bring home 50 cents.

I hate to have to say in addition again here, but Obama also wants to eliminate the cap on social security taxes.  Anybody making over $102,000 will see their payroll taxes go up.  This will change social security from an insurance program to a massive retirement plan that further “spreads the wealth around”.

Lastly, according to the Tax Policy Center, under the Obama plan the number of Americans paying income taxes will be reduced to 52%.  That means that only 52% of us, will be paying all the income taxes.  Soon, the majority of Americans will pay no income taxes at all.  America is moving to an erie place where a minority of Americans will be taxed so that checks can be sent to the majority of Americans.  All this coming from Obama who made several millions from books and gives almost nothing to charity.  Chuck Rangle is a gem too as he wants to raise taxes, but has been caught not paying all of his.

Americans need to decide if they want to be a nation with some with their hands out and others with their pockets turned out or a nation where hard work and success is celebrated.

Democracy, Obama Style

Like I was sayin… let me make you an offer you can’t refuse.

One of the main themes of a democracy (yes, I know we are a representative republic) is the right of the individual to vote in free and open elections.  One of the things that we also hold dear is the right to keep our votes private.  This is important as it removes the threat of intimidation.  You can tell me who to vote for, but you don’t have a way to know what I truly believe as my vote is private.

I was reading earlier this year that Obama and democrats want to “strengthen” unions by allowing unions to have people sign cards stating that they want to belong to a union.  Once enough people have signed the cards, the union is then the representative of the workers.

Now this doesn’t sound so bad on the surface, but the unions will have the workers sign the cards in public in front of other workers and union reps.  Essentially, they will march employees up to a table and have them sign a card if they want to join the union.  Refusing to sign would mean that they don’t want to join a union.  However, don’t even think for a second that being surrounded by pro-union workers and union organizers will sway anybody to sign the card….

HR 800 removes the right of workers to vote to unionize through secret ballot.  The argument goes something like “you can only tell a workers true intent by having them vote in public in the open”.  However, this turns the idea of the secret ballot on its head by declaring that workers voting by secret ballot are somehow susceptible to intimidation.

The Heritage Foundation has a good article describing the bill.  In essence, the bill has three main goals:

First,it requires the National Labor Relations Board to certify a union after a majority of a firm’s workers has signed union cards, puttingan end to almost all organizing elections: “if the [National Labor Relations] Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations…the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization.”

Second,the EFCA requires companies and newly certified unions to enter bindingarbitration if they cannot reach agreement on an initial contract after 90 days of negotiations. Neither companies nor employees could appeal the arbitrator’s ruling, and the contract would last for two years.

Third, H.R. 800 would dramatically increase the penalties for unfair labor practices committed by employers, but not unions, during an organiz­ing drive.

Those wishing to muddy the waters of the true intent of the bill indicate that after enough cards are signed, a secret ballot is then conducted.  However, the language of the bill seems pretty clear “if the [National Labor Relations] Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations…the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization”.

President Bush has stated his opposition to the bill.  However, Senator Obama has made his intentions clear:

“We’re ready to play offense for organized labor. It’s time we had a president who didn’t choke saying the word ‘union.’ A president who strengthens our unions by letting them do what they do best: organize our workers. . . . I will make it the law of the land when I’m president of the United States. . . .” ~ Barack Obama

I can imagine a day in the not to distant future where a run away Democratic congress and a President Obama declare and end to stolen elections and voter fraud by having us vote with our friends and neighbors looking over our shoulder to ensure our vote matches our true intentions.  I hope for our sake “we the people” wake up and see the direction that we are headed as a nation.

The Audacity of Troop Pullouts

Like I was sayin… do as I say not as I say.

Senator Obama made a big splash with is overseas trip this summer.  He made several anti-free market speeches and even met with military and political leaders in Iraq.

It should be no secret to anyone that Senator Obama favors a speedy withdrawal of US forces from Iraq as he has said so publicly of the last few years.  However, apparently what he does behind the scenes is quite different.

In an article today in the NY Post, Amir Taheri details Obama’s lobbying the Iraqi government to delay an agreement troop withdrawals until after the US elections.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zerbari:

He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington.

The article goes on to detail that:

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn’t want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of “pre-emptive” war – that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.

I find it hard to believe that an American presidential candidate would seek to derail Iraqi security negotiations for his own political gain, but then again, some people will do anything to gain power.  This is the type of thing that the candidate of change has been preaching against.

Once again we find our politicians saying one thing, but then doing another.

A windfall vote tax?

Like I was sayin… if you can’t earn ‘em, buy ‘em.

The windfall profit tax has been making the rounds again recently.  If you are not aware, a windfall profit tax is a tax on profits that are “just too big”.

The dems have been pushing a windfall profit tax on “big oil” again recently.  I have had a lot of conversations around the watercooler lately and am amazed on how unfamiliar many people are with the facts.  For instance, the biggest evil out there, Exxon, has been earning record profits lately.  Huge numbers like 11 billion make headlines.  However, most people don’t know that the profit margin, what is left over after Exxon pays all it’s expenses, is only 10%.  That means for every dollar they earn in revenue, Exxon keeps roughly 10 cents.  The other 90 cents go to pay expenses.  That is above the average for other oil companies, but below the average for Computer, electronic, and pharma.  It is also worthy to note that of that 10 cents, Exxon gives 2 cents to the shareholders via dividends.

The scary thing is how do the dems define a windfall profit.  Earlier this year, dems supported a tax on oil companies that had profits that grew by more than 10% for any one year.  That is far below profit growth for many successful companies.  If I switch jobs and get a 10% increase in income, am I in danger for some some future “too successful tax”?

The American people have been somewhat luke-warm to the idea.  However, that may change.  According to some reports, Sen. Obama will make a windfall profit tax part of his energy plan.  To help make this more popular, he proposes giving $1,000 dollars to families ($500 for individuals) and having “big oil” pay for it with their “outrageous profits” through a new tax.  Wouldn’t it be better for the government to give us some of the billions of dollars they get from the oil companies via the taxes they already collect?

It will be interesting to see how many people support the “vote for me and I will give you $1,000″ candidate.  Yet another example of the “politics of change”.  He says that he doesn’t look like past presidents, but he sure sounds like past politicians.

It’s Time to Soak the Rich

Like I was sayin… sometimes less is more.

You have been hearing it all the time lately.  John Edwards spoke of two Americas and Barack Obama is promising to make the rich “pay their fair share” of taxes.

Recent data from the IRS shows an interesting way to make this happen.  In 1990, long before the dreaded Bush tax cuts that allowed millions of Americans pay less in taxes to a bloated government, the top 1% of earners only paid 25% of the taxes.  Since the Bush tax cuts, what do you think they pay now?  21%? 19%? 15%?  In 2005, the total share of the tax burden on the evil 1% has changed from 25% in 1990 to 39% in 2005.  That’s right, since the tax cuts, the top 1% has seen their tax burden increase.

Ah, but surely the tax breaks must have gone to the rich as we hear our democrat leaders declare all the time.  Perhaps the top 5% got all the tax break…  Well, in 1990, the top 5% paid 44% of the total tax burden and in 2005, they paid 60%.  You are reading that correctly.  The top 5% of earners pay 60% of the taxes.

Surely the poor got soaked in all this because the media and the democrats keep telling us that is what happened.  However, the bottom 50% of earners paid only 2.9% of the taxes which is the lowest percentage ever.  That means that the top 50% of earners pay 97.1% of the taxes.

It seems that when you cut taxes across the board, “the rich” end up paying more of the total tax burden.  I for one say we stick it to them again by another round of tax cuts.  Heck, let’s really show them by cutting taxes across the board AND cutting spending.

Right Turn Clyde

Like I was sayin… most people wouldn’t like you if they knew what you really thought.  Apparently, Barack Obama feels the same way.

There have always been several things that bothered me about Sen. Obama, his total support for gun control, support for the “fairness” doctrine, commitment to pull out of Iraq without regard for thesittuation on the ground, and many other positions.

Not suprisingly, his support of these ideas and others allowed him to cater to the far left of the dem party and win the dem nod for the White House.  However, America isn’t far left even though I am afraid the left blinker is stuck on (which I will write about in a few days).  With his eye on the White House, Obama is singing a different tune on many past positions.

Dick Morris pointed out in a recent article many of these new-found convictions:

• He says he believes in a Second Amendment right to bear arms.
• He now opposes late-term abortion.
• He suddenly is a devotee of using faith-based institutions to deliver public services.
• He now says that he won’t raise Social Security taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. In the primary, he said he’d eliminate the threshold entirely, including on people making as little as $100,000.
• He recently opposed the Fairness Doctrine for talk radio.
• Now he says he’s going to consult with the military before pulling out of Iraq.

The upsetting thing is that this leaves many Americans wondering where does he truely stand.  Some of my friends on the left say that he is just saying those things to get elected (which many, oddly enough. think is ok).  The independents that I know that support him say that he only had far left leanings to get the nomination and now we see the real Obama (which oddly enough, they too, think this is ok).  The friends that I am still keeping aren’t voting for him anyway…

Over many years, a person can change their opinion on an issue, but most don’t change over the course of a few months.  I believe that Obama will govern from the far left (even if he doesn’t want to to so, see here).  This would leave America far weaker position in terms of the economy and our adherence to the constitution.

If you support or are leaning toward voting for Obama in November, you have to ask yourself which Obama are you voting for or even more importantly… which one will you get?

New Book: Adam’s Way, A New Beginning

Like I was sayin… you can’t talk politics all the time. 

A friend of mine, Rod Mustanski, recently published his first book “Adam’s Way, A New Beginning”.

The book, although primarily a romance story, has something for everybody including science fiction, mystery/suspense, and action.  Even though I never read romance stories, the story was a real page turner and I found it hard to put down as I wanted to see what happend to the main character next.  Overall, it was a great first work by a new author and I look forward to the sequel.

You can find out more about the book or purchase it at the author’s website.