WWJD?

A few days ago, while discussing the merits of extending unemployment benefits with Hardball host Chris Matthews, congressman Jim McDermott may have gotten a little carried away. He just had to invoke little baby Jesus while attempting to justify giving the unemployed 99 weeks worth of benefits.

His statement upset opinion program host Bill O'Reilly, who went on to say in his column that while "Every fair-minded person should support government safety nets for people who need assistance through no fault of their own...guys like McDermott don’t make distinctions like that." O'Reilly argues that not making such a distinction creates a nanny-state that is hard on the economy and ultimately self-destructive. He goes on to say, "being a Christian, I know that while Jesus promoted charity at the highest level, he was not self-destructive."

A good argument? Yes. And he obviously struck a nerve as the left-wing side of the media is up in arms about it. Even funny-man turned anchorman Stephen Colbert got a bit upset.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Jesus Is a Liberal Democrat
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> March to Keep Fear Alive

So what's the big deal here? Congressman McDermott was absolutely right in inferring that a true Christian, especially in this time of "baby Jesus in the cradle and all this stuff", would happily help the less fortunate. Colbert is absolutely right in his assertion that Christ would have us help anybody, without first judging them to find out if they "deserve" your help. And Bill O'Reilly is correct in his claim that excessive government income-intervention can lead to a self-destruction economic death spiral.

What I find so interesting in all of this is that O'Reilly and Colbert both miss the real point. All their arguments seem to be based upon the assumption that the federal government is the entity that should be taking care of the less fortunate. In O'Reilly's defense, he did say that Christ helped those who help themselves, but he still assumes that the government is what should provide that help.

Conservatives know that government is the worst entity to provide such "help". Government is not a charity. Government is the entity that society creates in order to protect itself from foreign threats, provide some infrastructure, and to create order to protect us from the crazies out there, period. Large, centralized government is inefficient, wasteful, corruptible, and slow. President Obama proved this point perfectly when he claimed that he would take the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse out of Medicare and put it into Obama-care (as if an even larger medical entitlement program would have less waste than it's smaller cousin). The entity that does charity work the best is...wait for it...CHARITY.

Additionally, having moneys forcefully taxed then given to others is not charitable, let alone Christ-like, it's social justice, or in other words, income redistribution. Somebody once told me that if a guy on the street demanded that you give him your money it'd be robbery, but if that same thug petitioned Washington to pass a law requiring your money, it'd just be called a tax. Don't get me wrong, taxes are necessary to fund the government, but when the government takes your money and gives it to somebody else, it's not really government anymore. It's government committing highway robbery in order to pose as a charity. As Maggie Thatcher would say, that would only work until the government runs out of your money.

Back to Jim McDermott. He, as do many liberals, infers that the Christian thing to do would be to pay your taxes happily because some of your taxed income might help the needy and that it is just as Christ-like to support the government's extending, and extending, and extending of so-called "benefits". While Christ did say to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, I don't think he'd say your soul is better off in regards to its salvation just because some of Caesar's money may go to help the poor. Why? Because that money is taken from you at the threat of going to prison. You must give that money away. If you don't believe me, just try to be a bit less charitable to the IRS for a year or two.

Really, what's so charitable about being forced to give up part of your income? True charitable giving is about taking money that you have no real obligation to give to anybody and willfully giving it to those who need it more than you. That, not paying your taxes, is Christ-like.

It's evident to conservatives that charitable giving is given freely from the heart, not taken at the threat of imprisonment, and that we should all give to the needy willingly, without pretense or judgment. However, it's also evident to conservatives that the government can't afford to finance the day to day lives of millions of Americans and expect to remain financially solvent for long. So how do we help the poor while maintaining a financially viable country? Simple. Do all we can to make government as lean as possible and leave the charitable giving to those who do it best....charities.

Deficit Busters!!

At 9:53 pm Mountain Standard Time on 18 Dec 2010, the US deficit was at $13,872,370,279,521 or 94% of GDP, the highest ratio of debt to GDP since shortly after WWII. In other words, the United States almost owes dollar for dollar as much as the entire country produces in a year. That's insane. So insane, in fact, that the president of the Council on Foreign Relations has stated that the debt is a national security threat. If it helps to bring such an enormous number to perspective, realize that each and every citizen of the united states would have to fork over $44,614 or each TAXPAYER would have to shell out $125,559 to wipe it clean.

Now, that number is not quite as horrific as it sounds. The debt held by the public, which excludes debt owned by government accounts (debt the government owes itself), is "only" at approximately $9,000,000,000,000, or about 63% of GDP.

So why is the deficit such a big deal? Benjamin Graham wrote in The Intelligent Investor (a great book by the way) that he feels it is unwise to invest in a company that has a debt load of over 50%. In other words, if a company has $5 million in assets, but owes $3.15 million to its creditors, Benjamin Graham would likely turn his nose up to it. China, the United State's largest "investor", has made grumblings to this effect. It's possible that they're beginning to feel that the US is "over-leveraged" and may not be a good investment. Not a good thing.

Some argue that the US shouldn't worry about it's current deficit as it only has to pay the interest payment to its debt holders. The current T-bond yield is about 3%, so in essence, these guys claim that as long as the US can afford to pay $416 billion (and growing) each year in interest on its loans, we can continue to get loans. That's akin to somebody saying it's fine to keep racking up their credit card debt because they can afford the minimum payment. That's all well and good until your creditor changes the rate (something China has threatened to do), or until you don't make as much money as you expected for some reason.

Regardless of what degree of threat you think our deficit poses to our national solvency, it is a problem that needs to be addressed. Earlier this year, President Obama had a budget deficit reduction committee created with the sole purpose of finding ways to reduce our country's soaring deficit. They brainstormed and think-tanked their socks off and came up with a handful of solutions.

The primary fixes are as follows:

1. Collapse today’s five income tax rates (10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35%) into three brackets (12%, 22% and 28%).

2. Eliminate itemized deductions

3. Tax capital gains at ordinary income rates

4. Eliminate and simplify a bunch of tax credits (mortgage, charitable giving, etc)

5. Gradually eliminate the exclusion for health coverage premiums

6. Change the corporate tax bracket to 28%

7. Increase the federal gas tax by 15 cents a gallon.

8. Raise the age at which Americans can get Social Security benefits to 69 by 2075.

9. Require the president to propose annual limits on war spending.

10. Gradually reduce the government’s civilian work force by 10 percent

11. Freeze pay for federal workers and members of Congress for three years

12. Eliminate all congressional earmarks

13. Change Medicare physician payment formula to reward quality instead of quantity

14. Cut congressional and White House budgets by 15%

There was a lot of fuss about the commission's results immediately after the report was released, but, as is always so apparent, our politicians are more worried about being re-elected that actually solving a budget crisis, so instead of addressing said crisis by instituting some of the commission's suggestions, they again extended unemployment benefits. Speaking of budgets, let's remember that our government doesn't even have one right now. Another political move by the democrats as that causes the republicans to spearhead the effort and be the bad guy who cuts spending, thereby enabling democrats to return to congress on campaigns that shout, "Republicans want grandma to eat catfood!" All at the expense of our national solvency.

Sorry, got sidetracked.

Anyway, as I was saying, I'm sorely disappointed in a government that, when it gets reminded of it's infrugality (somebody tell Webster I just made up a word!), instead of looking itself in the mirror and admitting it's a spending addict, it runs off and spends some more.

So, in my own passive aggressive form of protest, I propose my own deficit cutting measures:

1. Flat tax. 22% tax on everybody. If you're on welfare, you get 22% of your welfare check taken back by Uncle Sam. I'm serious. Right now nearly half of Americans (including me thanks to a myriad of deductions) pay ZERO federal income tax. That's sick. Everybody needs some skin in the game. That way, next time we decide to give people in Atlanta a heat bill subsidy to fight a 50 degree cold front, we might think twice.

2. Eliminate nearly all tax deductions and definitely all credits. The IRS should never owe you money come April. I want to say no deductions at all, but I am tempted to believe that we can allow charitable contributions to be tax deductible (thanks a lot Dad).

3. Eliminate the capital gains tax. That's a tax on money that's already been taxed. I'll refer you to Nate here.

4. Set the corporate tax rate at 22%. A flat tax is a flat tax.

5. Change the social security eligibility age to 70 by 2020. In 2012 its 66; in 2014 it's 67 and so on. Frankly, I think we should phase it out entirely or at least return it to what it was initially (assistance to the elderly needy and widows).

6. Reduce the federal workforce by 15%. That's just over a 5% reduction of the size the federal workforce was in 2009.

7. Freeze pay for all federal workers and congress for 5 years then allow the maximum of an inflation matching increase each year thereafter.

8. Eliminate all earmarks. That should have been done ages ago.

9. Cut the federal budget by 15%. Not impossible.

10. Repeal the health care bill. The bill is bringing with it immense federal spending that will only further inflate the deficit. Once the bill is repealed, we can start over with real health care reform. The last bill only changed how we paid for health care and who paid for it rather than actually making health care more affordable.

I'm sure there are many additional things we can do to balance the budget and reduce the deficit.

While both my suggestions and those of the actual committee could be seen as "drastic", real action is necessary. I have serious doubts that anything genuine will be done. As we've already seen, it's more likely that we'll only see some token efforts and the can will keep getting kicked down the road. So, hopefully, we can get somebody who has real power to get this ball rolling. Somebody tell John Boehner, "YES WE CAN get the deficit under control."

Individual Mandate Say What!!!

Today Virginia Federal Judge Henry Hudson deemed the individual mandate of the health care law known as "Obama-care" to be unconstitutional. While other Federal Judges have ruled in favor of the mandate, a ruling in opposition to the mandate is likely to take the case to the supreme court.

While I don't pretend to be a constitutional attorney, I agree with the judge's conclusion that the mandate is unconstitutional. While congress does have the authority to regulate commerce, as the judge said, it does not have the authority to force you to create it. This judge basically said today that when a person purchases a good or service, that congress can regulate it, i.e, tax it, control the size and scope of the purchase, regulate how the transaction occurs, et cetera; but congress does NOT have the authority to create that purchase (force you to initiate it).

Spot on.

Constitutionality aside, there are some serious problems with the mandate. Simply legislating human behavior won't change that behavior.

Supporters of the bill say that forcing people to purchase health care is "ok" because it is (1) for their own good and (2) reduces the financial impact of the uninsured on the general tax base. If these guidelines justify the forcing of individuals to purchase health care, then why not anything else if it does the same?

For example.......

Purchasing life insurance could satisfy the above criteria. If everybody bought life insurance, then the number of single parents on taxpayer funded welfare would likely be lower and it's obviously good for the individuals who are separated from loved ones prematurely. So why not force everybody to buy life insurance?

Criminals break into homes and assault and kill people all too often. Pursuing, trying, convicting, and incarcerating these individuals is done at massive taxpayer expense. Homeowners would clearly be better off if they were able to defend themselves, so why not require everybody to purchase a firearm and ammunition? Additionally, as a tool is no good to the untrained, we should also force everybody to go to a personal protection firearm school as well. Imagine the taxpayer dollars, not to mention the taxpayers, that would be saved.

Taxpayers spend billions of dollars subsidizing public transportation. It would be much cheaper if we simply built a bunch of private toll roads and required everybody to purchase a car and to drive the tollroads. When the roads get jammed, we'll just widen existing roads and build new ones. Sounds great.

Many people retire poor. It's a shame that some people are forced to eat catfood in their latter years. Wouldn't it be great if we forced everybody to buy into a government controlled retirement fund? That way people would be able to retire knowing that at least they can eat. Oh, wait, that's social security....[retro turntable screeching] ...REMIX!!!!..... Times have changed and inflation has gone up so far that social security alone is clearly not enough to retire. Perhaps we should force everybody to purchase a privately owned retirement account as well so they can once again retire with confidence.

Finally, food stamps, WIC, and other food subsidies cost the taxpayer billions. If these people would just buy their own d@mn food things would be much better for everybody, right? So why don't we just pass legislation forcing people to buy 3 meals a day worth of food?

These examples are ridiculous, I know. However, I chose them for a reason. Many of the rebuttals that show how ludicrous those ideas are also show the insanity of the health care law.

Requiring people to buy life insurance won't solve poverty caused by providers passing away. Some people won't buy adequate coverage.

Requiring people to purchase a firearm goes against the morals of many. For example, a neighbor of mine would rather die than lift a finger in self defense. Many people have religious or personal objections to the requirement.

If everybody drove to work we'd have to build more roads. Expensive. In the meantime, the roads we do have would get worn out and would be incredibly crowded. Crowding and quality would become an issue.

Simply requiring people to buy food won't solve the problem. Some people can't afford it.

Social security was intended, initially, to provide for those who could not afford their own retirement. Widows, the poor, etc. Unfortunately, the program was expanded, and expanded, and expanded. Now it's barely viable. But making people buy another retirement account won't solve people retiring poor. Once again, some simply can't afford it. Additionally, some will just do the minimum then rely on the existing failsafe for their livelihood anyway.

So why is the health care mandate a bad idea? A few reasons: Some won't buy enough coverage anyway, many object to it, crowding and quality of care can become an issue, some people simply can't afford it, and...oh yeah...some people can't afford it, and, as a result, will instead do the bare minimum then rely on existing failsafes (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP) for their livelihood anyway.

Monkey Wants More Highway Money!!

I thought this little vid was too good not to pass on. It demonstrates quite well how our representatives blatantly divert funds to pay for pet projects.

While I'm all for watching monkeys on crack, I'm not completely convinced that it should be done on the taxpayers dime.

Loonyville

Welcome to Loonyville. It's a place where ones imagination rules. Reality just won't do when you can replace it with what wish was reality.

In Loonyville, appeasing and ignoring your enemies will make them go away instead of just encouraging them.

In Loonyville, holding tax cuts for the poor and middle class hostage as a means to soak the rich is a great idea.

In Loonyville, paying people not to work helps the economy.

In Loonyville, people upset with health care are much more likely to set off truck bombs than radical Islamists.

In Loonyville, telling your enemy the date you plan to stop fighting him won't embolden him.

In Loonyville, banning guns will make bad guys stop using them.

In Loonyville, tax cheats write the tax code and run the treasury.

In Loonyville, a state university can hold a Dreidel spinning event, but a German Christmas Holiday Market can no longer display the word "Christmas" on its sign.

In Loonyville, publicly "condemning" the man who published thousands of classified documents is a proportionate response.

And the list goes on.

As ridiculous a place as Loonyville seems, we can all call it home.