Vote for Obama and get FREE STUFF!

About that Free Healthcare, . . .

See: BAD WEEK FOR FREEDOM

Only a deceitful government busybody do-gooder would actually argue that forcing insurance companies to cover millions more Americans and cover pre-existing conditions would result in lower costs for the average family. I wonder what will happen in 2014 when 30 million more Americans are guaranteed “free” healthcare under Obamacare. The saddest part of this oncoming train wreck is that millions of willfully ignorant people actually believed the blatant lies and false storyline fed to them by sociopathic politicians who desire to control every aspect of their lives. These people believe they know what is best for you. They believe they are smarter than you. They do not care what means are required to achieve their ends of absolute domination over your life. Personal freedom, individual liberty and a critical thinking populace are the antithesis to the desires of the governing elite.

And about all of that other Free Stuff that you are being promised . . .

See: Can Obama Win Re-Election by Promising Free Stuff

Mr. Obama says he is not waging class warfare against the wealthy in America. He is, of course. His campaign slogan might as well be: ” Vote for Me … I’ll Give You Free Stuff.” This is enticing. Imagine if you pay no federal income taxes and one of the candidates says, “I’ll take money from rich people and give it to you to pay your mortgage – even if you were irresponsible and bought a house you couldn’t afford. Vote for me, I’ll make sure you get unemployment benefits for almost two full years. And, oh yeah, vote for me and I’ll make sure you get birth control pills — free of charge.

The most important, underreported story in America is the one about who we Americans are becoming. As Bill O’Reilly put it: President Obama is “calculating that the American voter has changed into a person who wants free stuff from the government and is willing to sacrifice some freedoms in order to get the free stuff. And you know what? The President might be right.”

Like Bernard Goldberg, I am not convinced that this election is a slam-dunk for the Republicans. I think that when a large enough portion of the voting population is dependent on the government for their material comforts and wants, our mandate to be "a free people" devolves into pleading to be "a people of free stuff."

We are becoming more and more like the serfs of our feudal past.

Charity Versus Robin Hood. Can you force charity at the point of a gun?

See: American Catholicism’s Pact With the Devil

In the process, the leaders of the American Catholic Church fell prey to a conceit that had long before ensnared a great many mainstream Protestants in the United States – the notion that public provision is somehow akin to charity – and so they fostered state paternalism and undermined what they professed to teach: that charity is an individual responsibility and that it is appropriate that the laity join together under the leadership of the Church to alleviate the suffering of the poor. In its place, they helped establish the Machiavellian principle that underpins modern liberalism – the notion that it is our Christian duty to confiscate other people’s money and redistribute it.

At every turn in American politics since that time, you will find the hierarchy assisting the Democratic Party and promoting the growth of the administrative entitlements state. At no point have its members evidenced any concern for sustaining limited government and protecting the rights of individuals. It did not cross the minds of these prelates that the liberty of conscience which they had grown to cherish is part of a larger package – that the paternalistic state, which recognizes no legitimate limits on its power and scope, that they had embraced would someday turn on the Church and seek to dictate whom it chose to teach its doctrines and how, more generally, it would conduct its affairs.

Those that seek to use government to "redistribute the wealth" should keep the following in mind:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. -Exodus 20:17

Theft is no less a sin when you use government to take from your neighbour because he has wealth to take.

You can only give as charity that which is yours to give. You cannot put a gun to someone's head and make him give his money to the poor and call it charity.

The next wave of sin taxes.

See: Multnomah County initiative would tax soda pop, other drinks

PORTLAND -- Backers of an initiative to tax pop and others sweetened drinks in Multnomah County say it will put people to work and give kids opportunities to exercise.

The initiative calls for a one cent per fluid ounce tax on most sweetened drinks including pop.

Another example of progresives cleverly inventing new ways to tax the snot out of everyone living and dead.

Expect this tax to come to your local town in the near future. Bad ideas like this have a way of spreading, like lice.

No Blank Checks For Obama

See: Speaker Boehner's Debt Ceiling Speech

Speaker Boehner tells President Obama to get stuffed.

The sad truth is that the president wanted a blank check six months ago, and he wants a blank check today. That is just not going to happen.

You see, there is no stalemate in Congress. The House has passed a bill to raise the debt limit with bipartisan support. And this week, while the Senate is struggling to pass a bill filled with phony accounting and Washington gimmicks, we will pass another bill - one that was developed with the support of the bipartisan leadership of the U.S. Senate.

Obviously, I expect that bill can and will pass the Senate, and be sent to the President for his signature. If the President signs it, the 'crisis' atmosphere he has created will simply disappear. The debt limit will be raised. Spending will be cut by more than one trillion dollars, and a serious, bipartisan committee of the Congress will begin the hard but necessary work of dealing with the tough challenges our nation faces.

The problem is not on the revenue side. It is on the spending side.

Raising taxes only robs the productive of the means and the reason to produce.

Raising spending only feeds the addiction of the looter's to other people's money.

Raising the Debt Limit only increases the already unmanageable levels of debt that are being passed on to future generations.

We might be better off to just shut it all down.

Eat The Rich!

See: Get Ready for a 70% Marginal Tax Rate

But wait, things get worse. As Milton Friedman taught decades ago, the true burden on taxpayers today is government spending; government borrowing requires future interest payments out of future taxes. To cover the Congressional Budget Office projection of Mr. Obama's $841 billion deficit in 2016 requires a 31.7% increase in all income tax rates (and that's assuming the Social Security income cap is removed). This raises the top rate to 52.2% and brings the total combined marginal tax rate to 68.8%. Government, in short, would take over two-thirds of any incremental earnings.

How hard would you work if you were only able to keep 30 cents of every dollar that you earned?

Should Doctors Be Allowed To Refuse Obama-Care Patients?

That is a question that will become a hot topic in our political culture very shortly.

See: U.S. Plans Stealth Survey on Access to Doctors

The administration says the survey will address a “critical public policy problem”: the increasing shortage of primary care doctors, including specialists in internal medicine and family practice. It will also try to discover whether doctors are accepting patients with private insurance while turning away those in government health programs that pay lower reimbursement rates.

Can the government force Doctors to accept Obama-Care patients? (What would or could stop them?)

Should the government force Doctors to accept Obama-Care patients? (Only thugs and thieves would say "Yes.")

The only alternative that the government has in getting Obama-Care patients to be readily accepted by Doctors is to have a payment schedule that is competitive with private insurers. That "jus' ain't a gonnah happen." The costs would be astronomical, just like all of the Obama-Care critics have been saying from day one. Forcing Doctors to accept Obama-Care patients would allow the leftist political class to pretend that their medical care scheme will work, at “cheaper” costs. (But only for a short time.) Of course, finding any doctor after that point will be a whole different problem.

Then the question that will be debated in the political sphere is whether or not government can prevent Doctors from quiting or retiring.

UPDATE [June 28, 2011 - 22:49]

See: Surprise: HHS drops plan to snoop on doctors

See: Program to Use Mystery Shoppers to Probe Doctors Scrapped

See: Kirk asks Obama administration to reconsider 'stealth' doctor survey

The Congressman has some interesting questions for Kathleen Sebelius. Among them:

2) Please provide records of how the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) of Chicago, Illinois, won a federally competitive bid to carry out this work.

It is an interesting question.

Hat Tip to Hot Air for the Update links.

Osama Gives No Bump To Obama

See: Bin Laden Death Will Not Boost Obama: Expert

“The immediate reaction in the US notwithstanding, 'normal business' will soon be resumed in US politics. There will be no change on the fiscal/debt polarization and contrary to some commentators' reaction, definitely no election boost for Obama,” said Newton in an interview with CNBC on Tuesday.

Barbara Walters and many others in the media may think that the killing of Osama will boost Obama's re-election chances. There hopes are only a reflection of their fears. Obama is in so much trouble that they are desperate to grasp at anything.

There will be no lasting boost for Obama*. By election day, Osama will be all but forgotten.

The Democrats own the economy. The voters will be thinking about the lack of work and the rising price of gas and food when they think about Obama from now till election day. Osama will be an afterthought at most.

Obama, it's the economy, stupid.

~~~

* You can watch the Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll as the numbers begin to show peoples opinion of the president in the days after the Osama killing. I expect a small bump, but one that is so small and temporary that it could easily be confused with noise. A week from now, Obama's numbers will be as bad as they are today, if not worse.

From the May 3rd Report

Daily updates are based upon nightly telephone interviews and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. As a result, two-thirds of the interviews for today’s update were conducted before news was released about the death of Osama bin Laden. Thursday will be the first update based entirely upon interviews conducted after that event. Results from the single night of data collected on Monday shows a modest improvement in the president’s Approval Index rating. However, there was no improvement in the president’s overall approval rating. Caution should always be used when interpreting a single night sample from a tracking poll.

Democrat Proposes Toilet Paper Tax.

See: Suttle unrolls toilet paper tax

Raising taxes is how Democrats think that their spending problem can be solved.

Suttle has proposed a 10 cent federal tax on every roll of toilet paper.

Mayor Jim Suttle is a Democrat. His Party affiliation is not mentioned in the article about his toilet-paper tax. Funny how that works.

Voting With Their Feet

See: Low-tax states will gain seats, high-tax states will lose them

The state and local tax burden is nearly a third lower in states with growing populations, ATR found. As a result, per capita government spending is also lower: $4,008 for states gaining congressional seats, $5,117 for states losing them.

And, as ATR notes, “in eight of ten losers, workers can be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. In 7 of the 8 gainers, workers are given a choice whether to join or contribute financially to a union.”

Imagine that.

Here in Washington State, William Gates Senior was one of the principle backers of an attempt to introduce an State Income Tax for Washingtonions. The measure was trounced. The Democrats lost on that one big-time.

See: Why Washington’s Tax on the Rich Failed

Passing I-1098 would have created the state’s first income tax. Polls and pundits said the main opposition to the tax was that voters feared the tax would start with the rich, and then quickly work its way down the income ladder.

“Citizens determined I-1098 was simply the first step toward establishing an income tax on all Washingtonians,” said Scott Stanzel, Defeat 1098 campaign manager, in a statement.

When I was asked about this by people that I know, I would in turn ask them if they really believed that the politicians would not extend the income tax to them. I told them that if they were in-favor of "taxing the rich", they also had to decide how much the trusted the politicians that they would be putting in charge of who was going to be taxed.

Time to grow out of the Microsoft "Subscription-Software" Trap

Open Office.

It is free. You can install it for free on a machine running a Microsoft OS. It also works on Linux and other non-Microsoft OS's. (Microsoft Office, not so much.) If your customers are still stuck with the Microsoft products, Open Office can save files to the Microsoft formats.

It takes a little getting used to, but I like it.

And the Gates' are pushing an income tax here in Washington State.

Screw'm.

Whats that?

Need to upgrade your OS too?

Ubuntu is pretty good, and its free. Linux used to be a pain in the ass to use. It was geekware, built by geeks for geeks. Now it is easy enough for anyone to use.

Linux is now no more difficult and no more buggy then the Microsoft products. And you don't have to fight the malware and virus battles that are de rigueur with Micorsoft products. Overall, I have much fewer problems with my Linux machines then I do with my Microsoft machines.

Go Linux. Because it just works.

Did I mention that the Gates's are pushing an Income Tax proposal here in Washington State?

Screw'm and the horse (Microsoft) that they rode in on. Bastards.

Of Riots And Renting Votes With Borrowed Money

See: The disintegration of the welfare state

Democracies produced Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, fulfilling the expectation of Socrates and Machiavelli that democracies end in tyranny. Now democracies are fulfilling the complementary expectation of Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman that democracies end in bankruptcy. Put a democracy in charge of the Sahara, Mr. Friedman once said, and sand itself will become scarce. Democracies are indeed profligate trustees – or have been for the past 30 or 40 years. Mr. Friedman’s primary fret, though, was the tendency of democracy to centralize political and economic power in the same hands. Most critiques of democracy reflect this elemental distrust. “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb,” Benjamin Franklin reputedly said, “voting on what to have for lunch.”

Democratic self-deprecation isn’t quite as funny as it once was. Mobs have already taken to the venerable, iconic streets of European states, notably among them Greece, birthplace of Athenian democracy. It’s apparently easier to give wealth away than it is to take it back. Democracy assembled the welfare state peaceably enough. Can democracy dismantle it as peaceably? No, it can’t. The mobs are not finishe

d.

Further down in the article is this gem:

“The adoption of Keynesian analysis provided politicians with a rationale for borrowing money to buy votes.”

And here we in the US find ourselves, much as our cousins on the other side of the Atlantic do, broke and deep in debt.

The trouble stems from the fact that you can't really buy a person's vote. At best you can only rent it, one election at a time.

It doesn't take a degree in economics to understand that borrowing money to pay a rent is madness.

Not that madness seems to bother politicians much.

And where will it all end?

Democracies have made people more dependent on the state than any humanitarian necessity required. For Italy, and for other democracies, the worst is surely yet to come. Already, hundreds of thousands of middle-class people have thronged the streets of Paris and Rome, of Milan and Sarajevo, of Reykjavik and Bucharest (where demonstrators stormed the presidential palace, an insurgent act that evokes the spectre of revolution). The World Socialists’ website proclaims an age of rage ahead – and chillingly quotes British historian Simon Schama: “You can smell the sulphur in the air.”

Fun times ahead my comrades. Fun times indeed.

The Health Care Scheme And The Making Of Political Pawns

During the political debate that accompanied the Democrat's health-care scheme's passage, you may have encountered one or two or more people for whom the issue was personal, because they were both poor and had pre-existing conditions that made private health-care insurance something that was beyond their reasonable financial means.

These people were (and still are) in a terrible bind.

For them, the health-care debate was important because they saw themselves as being direct and immediate beneficiaries of the socialized medicine scheme.

I would hope that if I was in their desperate situation, that I would be able to stand on principle and still be able to oppose having my health-care subsidized by the forced appropriation of other peoples earnings. That would be a difficult position to be in. None of us should think it easy to stand on principle when doing so means the strong likelihood of suffering a miserable life and an untimely death.

It is important to keep in mind that they have an extremely difficult time considering the implications of socialized health-care dispassionately. They are directly and immediately involved. They are looking for something that will give them hope for a life that will not be one long grind of depressing poverty and poor health.

I know people like this. I am sure that you do too.

I worry for them.

They have put so much of their hope for a better life into the sweet promises of socialized medicine that they are the ones that will be the most hurt by the inevitable politicization of health-care that is the real heart and driving force of the socialized medicine scheme.

Now for the rest of their lives, they will be whipsawed and terrorized by the unscrupulous Democrats that have now made them desperately dependent on the generosity and and good will of the political class. They will be made the pawns of evil Democrat politicians that will parade them about as victims to be pitied and a reason for which the rest of us should surrender ever more of our earnings and our rights to an ever growing government.

It has already begun.

Take the following news article.

See: Health law risks turning away sick

The Obama administration has not ruled out turning sick people away from an insurance program created by the new healthcare law to provide coverage for the uninsured.

Critics of the $5 billion high-risk pool program insist it will run out of money before Jan. 1, 2014. That’s when the program sunsets and health plans can no longer discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions.

Administration officials insist they can make changes to the program to ensure it lasts until 2014, and that it may not have to turn away sick people. Officials said the administration could also consider reducing benefits under the program, or redistributing funds between state pools. But they acknowledged turning some people away was also a possibility.

There it is. “. . . it will run out of money . . .“ - “. . . they acknowledged turning some people away was also a possibility . . .”

The chronically ill and those with per-existing conditions are now political pawns in a very dirty political game.

We have seen this kind of thing done before (in every election for the last 60+ years) by the Democrats with Medicare and Social Security.

The Democrats will now work to frighten the hell out of the people that they have made dependent on Obama-care by threatening them with misery and death if they vote for anyone but Democrats. This will now happen in every election from now till the end our nation's days.

The chronically ill and those with per-existing conditions think that Obama's socialized medicine scheme will save them. The reality is that they have been reduced to political pawns, to be forever paraded about by Democrats as pathetic and helpless miserable victims in order to help the political class rob the rest of us of our earnings and our rights. On top of that, they will be forever threatened by Democrats with ruin and death at every election should the Democrats ever lose at the ballot box.

Heaven help us all.

The Pending Crisis And Growing Analogies To Greece

From the “Are we having fun yet?” files comes this bit of happy commentary from Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.

See: Greenspan Says U.S. May Soon Reach Borrowing Limit

“The federal government is currently saddled with commitments for the next three decades that it will be unable to meet in real terms,” Greenspan said. The “very severity of the pending crisis and growing analogies to Greece set the stage for a serious response.”

Greece?

That will suck.

The BP Gulf Oil Spill, Regulatory Capture and Government Failure

As the BP Gulf Oil Spill crisis drags on, the calls and screams to have people criminally prosecuted will become ever more shrill and demanding.

Who and what is ultimately to blame?

Looking at BP's role and lobbying efforts in American politics reveals something very interesting about the nature of political systems and the human condition.

See: Feel the Rage

The liberals' fury at the President is almost as astounding as their outrage over the discovery that oil companies and their regulators might have grown too cozy. In economic literature, this behavior is known as "regulatory capture," and the current political irony is that this is a long-time conservative critique of the regulatory state.

The Nobel economist George Stigler of the University of Chicago was one of the concept's main developers, and it is a seminal plank of the "public choice" school of economics for which James Buchanan won the economics Nobel in 1986. Ronald Reagan warned about this in different words in one of his farewell speeches.

In the better economic textbooks, regulatory capture is described as a "government failure," as opposed to a market failure. It refers to the fact that individuals or companies with the highest interest or stake in a policy outcome will be able to focus their energies on politicians and bureaucracies to get the outcome they prefer.

See: Once a government pet, BP now a capitalist tool

While BP has resisted some government interventions, it has lobbied for tax hikes, greenhouse gas restraints, the stimulus bill, the Wall Street bailout, and subsidies for oil pipelines, solar panels, natural gas and biofuels.

Now that BP’s oil rig has caused the biggest environmental disaster in American history, the Left is pulling the same bogus trick it did with Enron and AIG: Whenever a company earns universal ire, declare it the poster boy for the free market.

Making government more powerful, makes it more corruptible.

Government is corruptible because people are corruptible. There is no getting around or away from that fact.

As government grows and is given more control over the details and minutia of our daily lives, the scope of corruptibility of the government grows with it.

When the government makes a law, a rule or a regulation regarding a behavior, it affects peoples lives. Laws, rules and regulations are created with the specific intent of affecting peoples lives. Since laws, rules and regulations affect peoples lives, they create an incentive for those most affected to be able to influence those that are making the laws, rules and regulations.

There is a give an take to this. Everyone has things that they want. Everything becomes negotiable. Anything can be bought if the price is right and a seller has something that a buyer wants.

The process that this all gets worked out in, where the negotiations are made, the horse trading is done and back room deals are dealt, we call politics.

People's property and lives are at stake. The costs and prices become greater as the scope and power of the laws, rules and regulations increase.

The end results can be disturbing and very predictable.

How is that "Hope and Change" working for you?

It seems it ain't working so well for Obama's "progressive" supporters.

See: Progressives Ask: Is It Obama, Or Is It Us?

Left-wing activists described the year leading up to Barack Obama's election as exhilarating, empowering and exciting.
Now, if you ask progressives gathered for the America's Future Now conference in Washington, D.C., about the first year and a half of his presidency, they say:

"Frustrating."

"Sobering."

"Brutal."

At least, those were the reactions of, respectively, union activist Nick Weiner, University of Minnesota political science professor Dara Strolovitch, and Steve Peha, who heads an education reform consultancy.

"I had hoped for something different," Peha explains. "I had hoped for the president who ran for office, and not so much the one who's in office."

Peha says he's a pragmatist -- he knows that campaigning and governing are different. But "what I wish is that President Obama had worked a little less for his ideal of bipartisanship and a little more for the people who elected him," he says.

This is the prevailing feeling at this week's America's Future Now conference. And no one is hiding it.

There are several things to remark upon here.

One, the Obama administration has easily been the most partisan administration that this country has suffered through since Johnson. His "take it or leave it" strategy for ramming through his health-care scheme is example enough of that. On that charge, the progressives are talking out their ass. They wouldn't know what "bipartisanship" was if it reached across the isle and slugged them.

Two, Obama is the most progressive President this country has had since Woodrow Wilson. Again, his health-care scheme is proof enough of that. We could also talk about his high tax policy and his regulatory policy per Cap and Trade. Then there is that whole financial crises fiasco created by the progressive geniuses Barney Frank and Chris Dodd that Obama managed to make much worse. He even seized control of GM for goodness sake. GM is now a government run enterprise strait out of the Mussolini play book. What do the progressives want! Any more progressive and and this administration would be considering controlling political speech by taxing internet news aggregators or bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine" to radio.

Three, Obama cannot realistically satisfy his hard left supporters. These are the people on the fringe of reality, more inclined to look at working through the constraints of the law and the constitution as backsliding and evidence of a spiritual weakness. These people were going to turn on him no matter what. That doesn't mean that we can't enjoy the schadenfreude while watching his own snakes turn on him.

Heh. . . Here is some "Hope and Change" good and hard you "progressive" dip-shits.

An Economic Collapse in 2011?

Art Laffer discusses the predictable results of raising taxes.

See: Tax Hikes and the 2011 Economic Collapse

On or about Jan. 1, 2011, federal, state and local tax rates are scheduled to rise quite sharply. President George W. Bush's tax cuts expire on that date, meaning that the highest federal personal income tax rate will go 39.6% from 35%, the highest federal dividend tax rate pops up to 39.6% from 15%, the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 15%, and the estate tax rate to 55% from zero. Lots and lots of other changes will also occur as a result of the sunset provision in the Bush tax cuts.

Tax rates have been and will be raised on income earned from off-shore investments. Payroll taxes are already scheduled to rise in 2013 and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will be digging deeper and deeper into middle-income taxpayers. And there's always the celebrated tax increase on Cadillac health care plans. State and local tax rates are also going up in 2011 as they did in 2010. Tax rate increases next year are everywhere.

Now, if people know tax rates will be higher next year than they are this year, what will those people do this year? They will shift production and income out of next year into this year to the extent possible. As a result, income this year has already been inflated above where it otherwise should be and next year, 2011, income will be lower than it otherwise should be.

We are more broke then we know.

Economics is an exercise in dynamic behaviors. People change their spending, investing and working behaviors when the tax code is changed. They will make decisions with the purpose and intent of keeping as much of their money as possible.

Expect people to behave rationally, even if that means working less because they can keep less of what they earn.

Hat tip: LuciusSeptimius @ Correspondence Committee

Public Employees Unions & Bankrupt Governments

We may soon see a wave of city and county governments file for bankruptcy in the near future. Bankruptcy gives the local municipal governments the means to deal with a significant source of their problems with their budgets.

See: Bankruptcy talk spreads among Calif. muni officials

Despite its stigma, bankruptcy has paid an important dividend for Vallejo: It has forced public employee unions to the negotiating table, providing city leaders an opportunity to rein in compensation, which city officials said accounts for more than three-quarters of Vallejo's general fund spending. City Councilwoman Stephanie Gomes said the effort has led to concessions from three of four city unions.

Like Vallejo, Los Angeles is suffering from weak revenue at the same time the cost of its pensions and other retirement benefits are rising. Former Mayor Richard Riordan said those factors put the government of the second largest U.S. city on track to declare bankruptcy between now and 2014.

Riordan sees bankruptcy as a necessary tactic for squeezing concessions from the city's public employee unions. It could also pave the way for 401(k) retirement accounts for new city workers instead of defined pension benefit plans with escalating costs, he said.

"The threat of bankruptcy is really the only way you're going to get them to make major changes," Riordan recently told Reuters.

The public employee's unions are the most powerful lobbies in existence. They own most (particularly the blue) local governments, lock, stock and barrel. They are an organized block of votes and campaign contributions that dominate local elections. They get their people out to vote. They control huge heaping gobs of money that get donated to (almost exclusively Democrat) campaigns. They are the deciding factor in blue districts. They own them.

The end result? The municipalities that have been generous with the compensation packages that they have given to their public employees unions are now broke. There is little or nothing left in the private sector to loot. Their economies are in the toilet, the rich are fleeing the state, and the low end private work force that remains earns next to nothing and pays next to nothing in taxes.

In such circumstances, filing bankruptcy can look like a good idea.

Too bad it won't work.

Dealing the unions a setback only leaves them in place to again manipulate elections so that they can again vote themselves ever larger portions of the public purse. So long as Public Employee Unions are able to influence local politicians, they will own those politicians. Nothing will really ever change.

~

See Also: Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich

We believe there are three unintended consequences from states raising tax rates on the rich. First, some rich residents sell their homes and leave the state; second, those who stay in the state report less taxable income on their tax returns; and third, some rich people choose not to locate in a high-tax state. Since many rich people also tend to be successful business owners, jobs leave with them or they never arrive in the first place. This is why high income-tax states have such a tough time creating net new jobs for low-income residents and college graduates.

See Also: Best and Worst States for Business 2010

How is it that the nation’s most populous state at 37 million, one that is the world’s eighth-largest economy and the country’s richest and most diverse agricultural producer, a state that had the fastest growth rate in the 1950s and 1960s during the tenures of Democratic Governor Pat Brown and Republican Governors Earl Warren and Ronald Reagan, should become the Venezuela of North America?

Californians pay among the highest income and sales taxes in the nation, the former exceeding 10 percent in the top brackets. Unemployment statewide is over 12.2 percent, higher than the national average. State politics seems consumed with how to divide a shrinking pie rather than how to expand it. Against national trend, union density is climbing from 16.1 percent of workers in 1998 to 17.8 percent in 2002. Organized labor has more political influence in California than in most other states. In addition, unfunded pension and health care liabilities for state workers top $500 billion and the annual pension contribution has climbed from $320 million to $7.3 billion in less than a decade. When state employees reach critical mass, they tend to become a permanent lobby for continual growth in government.

Are we having fun yet?

Hillery Clinton Talks About Brazil As A Taxation Model

See: Clinton: 'The rich are not paying their fair share'

"Brazil has the highest tax-to-GDP rate in the Western Hemisphere and guess what — they're growing like crazy," Clinton said. "And the rich are getting richer, but they're pulling people out of poverty."

Both Clinton and Obama campaigned for president on promises to allow the Bush tax cuts for wealthy Americans expire this year, a plan that is now part of Obama's budget. The move will effectively raise taxes sharply on people earning more than $250,000.

Hillery is clearly suggesting that Brazil's high tax rate is the reason that its economy is growing.

Brazil may have a high tax rate, but it also largely avoided the banking disaster that has put many other western nations on the brink of bankruptcy.

See: Lessons from Brazil: Why Is It Bouncing Back While Other Markets Stumble?

But all of Brazil's banks can be thankful that, to a large extent, they haven't had to deal with the toxic assets that crippled banks in developed countries. Unlike their counterparts elsewhere, Brazilian banks were not as exposed to the property sector and credit derivatives, and financial soundness indicators were robust coming into the crisis, according to Fabio Barbosa, head of Banco Santander Brasil and the Brazilian Federation of Banking Associations (Febraban). He cites the high capitalization requirement as a key reason for the sector's resilience -- the minimum capital adequacy requirement in Brazil is 11%, compared with 8% under the Basel regulations that other banks around the world follow. In December 2008, the average ratio for the sector in Brazil was 20%, and for the country's five largest banks (accounting for 67% of total assets) the ratio was 18.5%. He adds that Brazil also didn't have a shadow financial system, like in the U.S., thanks to tight regulatory and supervisory oversight. All financial institutions (including investment banks) are under the watch of the Central Bank.

One of Brazil's biggest advantages is that it did not have a Barney Frank or a Chris Dodd plundering it's banking system to redistribute wealth.

Comparatively, with the rest of the western world seeing their future play out for them in the street riots of Greece, Brazil is doing pretty good. It could do even better.

High tax rates reduce the private sectors ability to raise money for new projects, new ideas, new services, and new businesses. If Brazil were to reduce its tax rake to a lower level, productivity in their private sector would likely increase, which ironically enough, would also increase the amount of tax revenue that the government would be able to take in. Increasing the opportunity for the private sector to make money also increases the potential amount of taxable revenue that can be collected.

Conversely, if Brazil were to increase its tax rake even more than it is at present, it could expect to see an eventual decline in private sector productivity. Lower profits would reduce the amount of taxable revenue that the government could then skim out the publics pockets.

There is a point at which the tax rates can be raised high enough that the result would be reduced tax revenue to the Government. Right now, Brazil is in a boom period. They are making money. The high tax rate is not the reason that they are making money. It is just a factor that businesses in Brazil have to deal with, a hindrance that they have to overcome, a red-line that they have to pay for in their books.

In time, as their economy matures, that high tax rate of theirs will become more of a problem. Their politicians will either have the wit and the will to lower their tax rates which will increase profits and tax collections, or they will squeeze the public even harder with even higher taxes, which will reduce profits and reduce tax collections.

But to think that Brazil has somehow managed to tax itself into prosperity . . . is nuts.

Raise Taxes Or Cut Spending – Two World-views

Democrats in California have put together a plan to tax California out of their spending problems. They can't afford what they have promised, so they will take more from the productive to finance their shortfall.

See: California Democrats unveil tax-increase package

The plan by state Senate Democrats would raise $4.9 billion by raising California's vehicle registration fee, suspending corporate tax breaks scheduled to begin next year and boosting the state's tax on alcoholic beverages.

Democrats control both chambers of the state's legislature and have said they would seek new revenue to help plug the shortfall.

Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, by contrast, has ruled out tax increases and is relying largely on deep spending cuts in his plan for balancing the state's books. He has called for $12.4 billion of cuts and would scrap the state's welfare system, a plan Democrats have rejected.

Arnold Schwarzenegger's approach would be to cut spending as the best means to solve the state's spending problem. Arnold may not be the best representative of Republican philosophy, but in this example, he does so well.

For Democrats, raising taxes to solve an over-spending problem is the right thing to do because of the good intentions that drive their want to spend. They really do believe that raising taxes on the productive is a good way to support the poor and the disadvantaged that they want to help.

For Republicans, raising taxes to solve a spending problem is a little bit to much like shooting up with heroin in order to solve a drug problem. Its nuts. It only makes things worse. Reducing the incentive for the productive to produce will not only reduce how many people that the productive can employee, but it will also reduce the amount of profit that they will have that can be taxed. Everybody loses.

The road to hell is paved with . . .

Bitter Resentments And The Death Of The Euro.

All the happy talk in the world from bloviating socialist economist can not stem the tide that is turning against the Euro.

In Germany, the Euro is becoming the butt of bad jokes that are funny only because of the truth that they tell.

See: Berliners dream of return to deutschmark

Cabaret artists have been making jokes about wheelbarrows of notes, or telling the one about the German and the Greek who go out to eat, the German choosing the cheapest item on the menu, the Greek gorging on a range of dishes, before the waiter brings the German the bill at the end. The audience doubles over. But the reality is stomach-churning.

"We are building up an almighty bubble of debt which is going to burst in one great bang," says Hans-Werner Sinn, chief of Ifo, one of the country's leading economic thinktanks.

That means a bitter round of budget cuts, deeper than any seen since 1945. Every area of German life is expected to take a hit, from education to welfare benefits, swimming pools to autobahns. Far-fetched as talk of the return of the mark seems, the more it is talked about, the more it is likely to become popular, despite Merkel's insistence that if the euro fails, so will Europe.

Without Germany, the Euro is nothing. The Germans know it. All of Europe knows it. The resentment in Germany is real. Resentment like this will kill the Euro.