Tax Cuts for the Rich

      In addition to death and taxes, there is another thing in life that is certain.  When attempting to gain political power or  hold on to it, the Democrats are going to ratchet up their class warfare rhetoric.
      With the looming November elections and facing the prospect of losing control of the House and maybe the Senate also, Obama is crisscrossing the country spouting nonsense about the "rich" not paying their fair share of taxes.  Obama accuses the Republicans of wanting to cut taxes for millionaires, regulations for special interests and basically let Americans fend for themselves.  He then offers the standard Democrat talking points: Raise taxes on the rich, target tax cuts to the middle class ( which never seems to happen) and raise taxes on businesses (which is impossible).
        The question is, are the Democrats on to something?  The fact is that the top 1% of wage earners, those making more than $400,000 pay 40% of all federal income taxes collected and the top 5%, those making more than $160,000, pay 61% of all federal income taxes.  The bottom 50% of wage earners, those making $33,000 or less, pay less than 3% of all federal income taxes collected.  Forty percent of Americans pay no income tax at all.  No wonder there is a constituency that doesn't mind how much the federal government goes into debt.  They have no skin in the game. 
     Bill Freeze of "Real Clear Markets" has crunched the numbers on who pays what in taxes and the results will surprise a lot of people.  It turns out that George Bush did not decrease taxes on the rich, he increased them.  Both Clinton and Bush served eight years in the Presidency, but when Clinton was in office, Federal Revenue from individual income taxes was $5.66 trillion.  When George Bush was in office, Federal Revenue from individual income taxes was $7.45 trillion.  The "rich", the top %1 of taxpayers, not only forked over a trillion dollars more to the Federal Government under Bush, their share of the burden increased from 33% to 38%.  In addition, the rich paid a blended rate of 20.6% under Clinton but paid income tax at a blended rate of 21.3% under Bush.
      What is a "blended rate".   Well, when one pays income tax, say on $500,000, one doesn't pay a flat rate of 35% on the entire amount.  Rounded off, the first $8,000 is taxed at a rate of 15%, from 8001 to $34,000 is taxed at a rate of 15%, from $34,001 to %172,000 is taxed at a rate of 28%, from 172,001 to $374,000 is taxed at a rate of 33% and all over $374,001 is taxed at 35%.  Hence the "rich" paid a "blended average" of 21.3% under Bush.
     How did Bush cut taxes and have the "rich" paying not only more, but a greater effective rate?
     Well, when taxes go down, the "rich" change their behavior.  Those that work, work harder and longer.  They expand their business, creating jobs.  The "idle rich" change their investment behavior and instead of investing in low yield bonds, invest in higher yield taxable vehicles, the kind of investments that finance companies that create jobs.   When marginal tax rate go up, the opposite happens.  The rich cut back on work  and contract instead of expand business and the "idle rich" alter their investments to vehicles that require less taxes.  The "rich" are usually happy to pay more  of a "blended" tax rate as long as they are taking home more after tax dollars.
      If Bush had reigned in spending during his tenure as President, then he would have left Obama a surplus instead of a deficit because revenues to the treasury went up 30% percent under his watch.  Now Obama is dead set on letting the Bush tax cuts expire in the middle of a recession.  Tighten your belts folks, because we are in for some hard times until we get rid of this fellow.
     

Proposition 8

     So U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker struck down California's Proposition 8, passed by over 7 million Californians to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
     Imagine the hubris of an unelected guy in a black robe to overturn the historical and traditional definition of marriage that has been in existence since the dawn of civilization.  Now I know that some will say that different cultures have defined marriage differently and point to those that allowed polygamy.  Well, even in polygamous households, the marriages took place one at a time, not as a group.  Each marriage was still between one man and one woman.
     The arrogance of an unelected judge to overturn the express will of the people of a state is beyond comprehension.  silly me, I thought that under the Constitution we were a government of the people and by the people.  If Judge Walker's ruling is allowed to stand, and there is a 50/50 chance that it will, then the people of California have come under the rule of one man.
     That this issue is a Constitutional issue is absurd.  It is a stretch to say that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment applies, because no one is being denied their rights on the basis of citizenship.  Homosexuals enjoy the same rights as that of any citizen.  they can choose to marry anyone of the opposite sex that they wish.  No citizen has the constitutional right to enjoy special privileges based on his actions.
     In Judge Walker's ruling is the idea that laws, which have any basis in faith or even commonsense morality, are unconstitutional as he stated that, "The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite sex couples.  Did you get that?:  The idea that morality or a religious basis cannot be a factor in deciding law.
     Now that would be a shock to the late Dr. M.L. King who based his entire civil rights movement on the idea of Biblical morality.  The Black pastors of Birmingham asked Dr. King why he was breaking the law and he replied in his famous "Letter From a Birmingham Jail" that there were two types of laws: just and unjust.  King state that one had a moral and legal responsibility to obey just laws, but one had a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.  the difference was that a just law was a law was in accordance with the moral law of God land an unjust law was a law that was out of harmony with the moral law.  This is straight out of the tradition of Augustine, Aquinas and later, Blackstone, whose "Commentaries" formed the basis of our legal system for the first 150 years of America's existence before we devolved to case law and began relying solely on the opinion of judges.
      Being a homosexual himself, Walker's opinion exudes resentment to the idea that the state can somehow consider heterosexual couples superior to homosexual couples and he doesn't believe that there is any reason from the state's point of view to differentiate between them. Well, he could not be more wrong.  From the state's point of view, heterosexual couples are superior.
      Although for various reasons, not all heterosexual marriages produce children, in the normal course of things, they do.  Homosexual couples are incapable of producing children by themselves.  Marriage then normally leads to a family, and it is the family that is the basic building block of any society.  The only reason that government would have any interest in the institution of marriage at all is that of promoting the welfare of families.  It is in the family that future generations are socialized, taught responsibility, discipline and a host of other virtues that will produce good citizens.  Therefore any wise government will institute policies that will support an institution that produces good citizens.
       Judge Walker, in his arrogance, fails to realize that we don't get to define marriage.  It has already been defined by history, tradition, and yes, by God himself.  All we get to do is to recognize it.

Easter

Do you believe that Easter is true?  I am not talking about the Easter Bunny but about the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the grave.  If you don't believe it, what proof do you have that it isn't true?  If you do believe it, what difference does his bodily resurrection make in your life?

Decline of the Republic

The House passage of the "comprehensive" health care bill is being hailed by Democrats, liberals and the media (there I go, repeating myself again) as an historic event in American history.  They are right, but not quite in the sense they mean it.  It is an historic event alright, but only because we have just witnessed the shredding of our Constitution, the imposition of authoritarian rule and the beginning of the decline of the Republic.

Silly me.  I thought that the powers of the federal government were supposed to be "few and defined" and that any powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution as belonging to the federal government were to be reserved to the states.  Now admittedly, this has not stopped either Democrats or Republicans in the past from imposing  unconstitutional legislation on the nation, but never in our history has congress expanded the reach of government into the lives of its citizens to this extent against the clear will of those citizens.  The arrogance of a government takeover of  health care,which is opposed by 75% of the electorate who had let congress know in no uncertain terms that they wanted no part of this legislation, is just beyond comprehension.  I guess Rep. Alcee Hastings summed it up when he said, " There are no rules, we make them up as we go along".

That there is something wrong here is evident in the fact that it took tremendous pressure, maneuvering, and deal making  by Obama, Reid and Pelosi  in order to convince members of their own party to vote for this monstrosity.   No one in congress, the administration or the media knows all of the specifics that this 2000+ page monstrosity contains because they haven't read the thing.  As Nancy Pelosi pleaded, "We must pass this in order to find out what is in it".  Say what?

We do know some of what is in it and it is not good.  For the first time in the history, the government will have the power to tax someone for not buying a product, in this case health insurance.  The Dems are calling it a fine, but it is really a tax, because this regulation will be enforced by our friendly IRS and can result in taxes up to 2.5% of a persons income for failure to comply.  If a citizen goes without health care for a month, he will be forced to pay a one twelfth of the tax.  Imagine that the government told you that you had to own an automobile and imposed a tax on you if you refused to do so.

Regardless of how Obama tries to spin it, this bill is going to drive up insurance premiums, require an increase of $570 million in taxes  (and those taxes won't just be on the "rich"), transfer the millions of private doctor/patient decisions in to the hands of government bureaucrats and lower the quality of health care for everyone.  All this without lowering the cost of health care one cent. 

The provision that those with pre-existing conditions are entitled to purchase health care on the open market and not from a high risk pool is madness.  (Why can't I wait until I have a wreck to buy auto insurance?)  The inevitable result of the "pre-existing" provision  will be to drive insurance companies out of business and force everyone into a government run health plan which has been the end game all along.  Once under government control, the only outcome will be  longer waits for treatment and  rationing of health care by government panels.  Exactly what the Canadians have now.  Which brings up the question, "Now where are they going to go for medical care"?

There is no way that the country can afford this.  We are already $1.5 trillion dollars in debt and now we are going to add another $940 billion to that?  China is already balking at further lending and if they refuse to buy any more of our debt, the only solution is to print money, which the government is already doing.  This will lead to hyper inflation, driving up the cost of goods and services and once again putting health care out of the reach of those phantom 33 millions Americans who can't afford it now.  Folks, we are headed straight for third world nation status. 

One thing is certain, Americans should not be surprised at this.  Obama promised change and this is the type of change he was talking about.  Anyone who looked beyond the manner of speech to the actual content in his campaign would have known that he is a socialist.  When he told "Joe the plumber" that he was going to spread the wealth, that should have sent off alarms nationwide, but all it did was produce a collective yawn from the media and Americans.

I have to give the Democrats credit.  They were smart enough to ensure that the pain this bill is going to cause will not take effect until after the November elections with most of it not kicking in until after the elections in 2012.  What they are hoping is that it will have been the law of the land long enough with no adverse consequences and have become so entrenched that citizens will  view government provided universal health care as a right.

The bottom line is that we have now wrecked what was the best health care system in the world for 90% of the population in order to accommodate the other 10%.  The Democrats don't really care, because this whole deal isn't really about health care, it is about expanding the power of the federal government and basically changing our form of government.  Obama has gone on record as saying that he thinks the Constitution limits government too much and that the Founders never intended to lock us into one form of government.

I can see only two solutions to this.  First, remember who voted for this in November, vote them out and try to repeal this mess.  Secondly, don't get sick after this legislation takes affect.

Gay Marriage and Religious Freedom

 From Chuck Colson's Breakpoint

Gay Marriage v. Religious FreedomA Cautionary Tale March 8, 2010
     Catholic Charities in Washington, D.C., has announced changes to its employees’ health care benefits. Normally, this wouldn’t be big news. But this story isn’t only about deductibles and co-pays—it’s about the increasingly fragile state of religious freedom in the America.
     Employees were told that starting March 2, Catholic Charities would “not offer benefits to spouses of new employees or to spouses of current employees not already enrolled” in the health plan. Spouses currently covered under the plan would still be covered.
     The timing of the changes wasn’t a coincidence. On March 3, same-sex “marriage” became legal in the District of Columbia. In connection with the new law, the D.C. Council insisted that, as a city contractor, Catholic Charities had to offer the same benefits to same-sex couples that it did to heterosexual ones.
     In other words, Catholic Charities had to choose between church teaching and ministering to the city’s neediest residents.
     To put it mildly, the Council wasn’t sympathetic to the Archdiocese’s concerns. One Council member called them “childish.”
    It’s also no surprise that the D.C. Archdiocese is being portrayed as the villain. The Washington City Paper’s headline ran “To Avoid Funding Gay Marrieds, Catholic Charities Denies Benefits to All Spouses,” with the emphasis on “all.” In case the reader didn’t get it, the City Paper added a visual reminder: a picture of a rosary.
     There’s no recognition that what the Washington Post called a “bitter debate” between the District and the Archdiocese was, in fact, a profound infringement of religious freedom–an infringement done at the behest of a tiny minority within a tiny minority.
Nor was there any acknowledgment that these kinds of infringements aren’t limited to government contractors. Ordinary people are being asked to choose between their livelihood and obedience to their faith—like photographers, landlords, and caterers.
     You will also search in vain for mainstream media coverage of the indispensible role played by Christian institutions in caring for the vulnerable and marginalized. Almost 25 percent of the world’s AIDS patients are cared for in Catholic institutions alone. Christian hospitals in the U.S. serve a disproportionate percentage of the urban poor.
     All we read about, however, is the Catholic Church’s “stubbornness” or “recalcitrance.”
But it’s not just Catholics. All faithful Christians engaged in charitable work increasingly are being told to choose between serving their neighbors or following the dictates of their faith.
     This threat to religious freedom was one of the driving concerns behind the Manhattan Declaration. Interestingly enough, one of the original signers was Archbishop Wuerl of D.C., who refused to bend to the District’s demand. More than 425,000 people have now pledged not to “comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions” to do that which God has forbidden.
     Christians no longer have the luxury of sitting idly by while religious freedom, the sanctity of human life, and the institution of marriage come under more assault.

Trends for 2010

Excerpts from Chuck Bentley, CEO, Crown Financial Ministries in the January issue of Money Matters:

"1. The federal government will continue to expand and increase:  Although operating dangerously close to insolvency, the financial crisis of 2008 has given way to the "spend our way out of this" strategy currently in use by those who are entrusted with the use of our tax dollars.  As George Bernard Shaw observed, " A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul".

2. Banks will continue to have less loan activity: A correction is underway as the amount of money borrowed by businesses and individuals is reduced so that existing debt can be paid back. This would be a healthy trend if it did not have such an [negative] impact on our economic recovery.

 3.  A commercial real estate crisis: As delinquencies rise on commercial mortgages surge and vacancy rates rise, highly leveraged properties will continue to be in jeopardy of foreclosure.  At present, more than 3,000 banks and savings institutions have more than 300 percent of their risk-based capital in commercial real estate loans.

 4. State budget crisis: At least 48 states have addressed or still face shortfalls in their budgets for fiscal year 2010.  State budgets are built upon tax revenues. With declining residential property values and downward pressure on commercial real estate valuations, more states could find themselves  in a financial bind and in need of severe corrections to their expenditures, increasing taxes or seeking federal bailout money.

 5. Pivotal mid-term elections:  The U.S. government is wildly increasing its indebtedness while the general population is struggling to decrease its indebtedness as rapidly as possible.  The government has threes sources of income: taxes, borrowing, or printing currency.  When taxes and borrowing become insufficient to handle their appetite for spending, they will resort to the final option of further devaluation, printing worthless money.

Our appropriate response, regardless of our political affiliation, is to vote for those seeking office who see themselves as stewards of the resources supplied by the citizens and will commit to see our nation live within our means.  All others are not worthy of holding office.  If the midterm elections of 2010 do not achieve this result, a painful correction is looming large for all of us."

 

 

A Breach of Social Etiquette?

Scott Cost, a local columnist in Fort Mill, SC, has published a column complaining that  anyone who approaches him and brings up the subject of faith is in breach of social etiquette.  It seems that Scott takes great offense at the audacity of someone who would claim to know truth and try to persuade him to a different way of thinking.  I think it illustrates an age old problem of man, wanting to be his own god and not willing to submit to anyone or anything outside of himself.

I wonder if Scott would think me arrogant if we were at a social gathering and I told him not to drink the punch as I knew for certain that it was poisoned.  Probably not, as he would quickly realize that I had his best interest at heart.  You see, a claim to absolute truth is not arrogant in and of itself.  Everyone lives their life under the basic assumption that what they believe is absolutely true.  It is the same with those who spread what they consider to be the Good News of the Gospel.  They assume it to be true and are so convinced that it is indeed "good news" that they want to share it with others.  It is done out of love, not arrogance.

Admittedly, some Christians can come across as being arrogant, but Christianity itself is an invitation, not a command.  In Matthew 11:28-29, Jesus said, "Come unto Me, all who are weary and heavy laden and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke upon you and learn from Me for I am gentle and humble in heart and you will find rest for your souls.  For my yoke is easy and my burden is light".

People issue invitations because they want you to share in something that they believe will be to your benefit.  If Scott takes offense, it says a lot more about him than those who invite him to church or into a relationship with Christ.  He is perfectly free to reject the Gospel.  It is a proposal, not an imposition. .