Senator Dodd’s Regulation Plan: 14 Fatal Flaws in Financial Reform

Fourteen Flaws
Among other things, the bill:

1. Creates a protected class of “too big to fail” firms. Section 113 of the bill establishes a “Financial Stability Oversight Council,” charged with identifying firms that would “pose a threat to the financial security of the United States if they encounter “material financial distress.” These firms would be subject to enhanced regulation. However, such a designation would also signal to the marketplace that these firms are too important to be allowed to fail and, perversely, allow them to take on undue risk. As American Enterprise Institute scholar Peter Wallison wrote, “Designating large non-bank financial companies as too big to fail will be like creating Fannies and Freddies in every area of the economy.”[1]
2. Provides for seizure of private property without meaningful judicial review. The bill, in Section 203(b), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to order the seizure of any financial firm that he finds is “in danger of default” and whose failure would have “serious adverse effects on financial stability.” This determination is subject to review in the courts only on a “substantial evidence” standard of review, meaning that the seizure must be upheld if the government produces any evidence in favor of its action. This makes reversal extremely difficult.
3. Creates permanent bailout authority. Section 204 of the bill authorizes the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to “make available … funds for the orderly liquidation of [a] covered financial institution.” Although no funds could be provided to compensate a firm’s shareholders, the firm’s other creditors would be eligible for a cash bailout. The situation is much like the scheme implemented for AIG in 2008, in which the largest beneficiaries were not stockholders but rather other creditors, such as Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs[2]—hardly a model to be emulated.
4. Establishes a $50 billion fund to pay for bailouts. Funding for bailouts is to come from a $50 billion “Orderly Resolution Fund” created within the U.S. Treasury in Section 210(n)(1), funded by taxes on financial firms. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the ultimate cost of bank taxes will fall on the customers, employees, and investors of each firm.[3]
5. Opens a “line of credit” to the Treasury for additional government funding. Under Section 210(n)(9), the FDIC is effectively granted a line of credit to the Treasury Department that is secured by the value of failing firms in its control, providing another taxpayer financial support.
6. Authorizes regulators to guarantee the debt of solvent banks. Bailout authority is not limited to debt of failing institutions. Under Section 1155, the FDIC is authorized to guarantee the debt of “solvent depository institutions” if regulators declare that a liquidity crisis (“event”) exists.
7. Limits financial choices of American consumers. The bill contains a new “Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection” with broad powers to limit what financial products and services can be offered to consumers. The intended purpose is to protect consumers from unfair practices. But the effect would be to reduce available choices, even in cases where a consumer fully understands and accepts the costs and risks. For many consumers, this will make credit more expensive and harder to get.[4]
8. Undermines safety and soundness regulation. The proposed Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection would nominally be part of the Federal Reserve System, but it would have substantial autonomy. Decisions of the new bureau would not be subject to approval by the Fed. New rules could be stopped only through a cumbersome, after-the-fact review process involving a council of all the major regulatory agencies. This could impede efforts of economic (or “safety and soundness”) regulators to ensure the financial stability of regulated firms, as the new, independent “consumer” regulator would establish rules that conflict with that goal.

9. Enriches trial lawyers by authorizing consumer regulators to ban arbitration agreements. Section 1028 specifically authorizes the new consumer regulatory agency to ban arbitration agreements between consumers and financial firms. By reducing the use of streamlined dispute resolution procedures, more consumers and businesses would be forced to pay the costs of litigation—to the benefit of trial lawyers.
10. Subjects firms to hundreds of varying state and local rules. Section 1044 limits pre-emption of state and local rules, subjecting banks and their customers to confusing, costly, and inconsistent red tape imposed by regulators in jurisdictions across the country.
11. Subjects non-financial firms to financial regulation. Regulation under this legislation would extend far beyond banks. Many firms largely outside the financial industry would find themselves caught in the regulatory net. Section 102(B)(ii) of the bill defines a “nonbank financial company”” as a company “substantially engaged in activities … that are financial in nature.” The phrase “financial in nature” is defined in existing law quite broadly. According to former Treasury official Gregory Zerzan, it includes things such as “holding assets of others in trust, investing in securities … or even leasing real estate and offering certain consulting services.”[5] As a result, a broad swath of private industry may find itself ensnared in the financial regulatory net. As Zerzan explains: “An airplane manufacturer that holds customer down payments for future delivery, a large home improvement chain that invests its profits as part of a plan to increase revenues, and an energy firm that makes markets in derivatives are all engaged in ‘financial activities’ and potentially subject to systemic risk regulation.”
12. Imposes one-size-fits-all reform in derivative markets. The bill would subject derivatives now traded over-the-counter by banks and other financial institutions to regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and/or the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It would require most derivative contracts to be settled through a clearinghouse rather than directly between the parties. Yet derivatives are already increasingly being traded on clearinghouses thanks to private efforts coordinated by the New York Fed.[6] The Senate’s bill, however, would require virtually all derivatives to be so traded. Applying such ill-designed blanket regulation would make financial derivatives more costly, more difficult to customize, and, consequently, less widely used—which would increase overall risk in the economy.[7]
13. Allows activist groups to use the corporate governance process for issues unrelated to the corporation or its shareholders. Section 972 of the bill authorizes the SEC to require firms to allow shareholders to nominate directors in proxy statement. Such proxy access turns corporate board elections from a process designed to ensure that each board has a good mix of skills and experience into a popularity contest where the long-term interests of the stockholders become secondary to political agendas or corporate raiders. The process can also be used by labor unions, politicians who manage public pension funds, and others to force corporations to respond to pet social or political causes.
14. Does nothing to address problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These two government-sponsored housing giants helped fuel the housing bubble. When it popped, taxpayers—because of an implicit guarantee by the U.S. Treasury—found themselves on the hook for some $125 billion in bailout money. Not only has little of this amount been paid back, but the Treasury Department recently eliminated the cap on how much more Fannie and Freddie can receive. Yet the bill does nothing to resolve the problem or reform these government-run enterprises.

The Obama Smoke and Mirror Tax Cuts of 2009

Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:20pm GMT

Feb 17 (Reuters) - The $787 billion U.S. economic stimulus package contains about $287 billion in tax cuts, according to the latest congressional calculations on the value of the package and its impact on U.S. budget deficits.
President Barack Obama signed the bill on Tuesday, saying he wants quick action to boost the struggling economy.
Here are some of the major tax provisions in the bill:
FOR WORKERS, CONSUMERS AND RETIREES
* A "making work pay" refundable tax credit championed by Obama of up to $400 per individual and $800 for couples in 2009 and 2010. It is calculated at a rate of 6.2 percent of earned income and is phased out for individuals with adjusted incomes over $75,000 and couples with incomes over $150,000.
* A one-time payment of $250 to Social Security beneficiaries, railroad retirees and veterans receiving benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. State government retirees not eligible for Social Security would also get the $250 payment.
* Increases the earned income tax credit for low-income workers with three or more children.
* Increases eligibility for the refundable child tax credit to more low-income workers. The bill reduces the income floor to $3,000 in 2009 and 2010 from the current floor of $8,500.
* A new $2,500 tax credit for college education expenses. The credit phases out for individuals earning more than $80,000 and couples with incomes over $160,000.
* An $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers for homes purchased between Jan. 1 and Dec. 1, 2009. The tax credit phases out for individuals earning more than $75,000 and couples earning more than $150,000.
* Temporary relief from the alternative minimum tax for millions of middle-class taxpayers who otherwise would be ensnared by the tax originally meant for the very wealthy.
FOR BUSINESSES
* Small businesses with gross receipts of up to $15 million can write off 2008 losses against five previous tax years. Current laws allows a two-year carryback of losses.
Businesses will also be allowed to immediately write off more of their investments in computers and other equipment.
* Businesses that repurchase debt at a lower amount than when it was issued will be able to defer taxes on it. Usually reduced or canceled debt is treated as income and taxed. The break applies to debt repurchased adjusted after Dec. 31, 2008, and before Jan. 1, 2011.
* A tax break on capital gains from the sale of stock held in a small business for more than five years.
* The bill raises about $7 billion in revenues by repealing a Treasury Department decision last year to liberalize rules that were intended to prevent companies in a merger from taking huge tax breaks on losses of firms they were acquiring.
FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
* Creates a new category of tax-preferred bonds for investment in economic recovery zones for job training, education and economic development.
* Creates a new category of tax-preferred bonds for the construction, and repair of public schools and the purchase of land for schools.
* Creates a federal subsidy for state and local governments offering bonds that give investors credits against their federal taxes in place of interest payments.
FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY
* Extends tax breaks for wind facilities and other renewable energy facilities and provides other tax incentives to encourage development of renewable energy facilities.
* Authorizes an additional $1.6 billion of new clean renewable energy bonds as well as $2.4 billion of energy conservation bonds to finance state and local government projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
* Extends tax credits for energy-efficient improvements to existing homes.
* Provides a tax credit for purchase of "plug-in" electric vehicles of at least $2,500. The credit is increased depending on the battery capacity of the car purchased.
* Provides a new 30 percent investment tax credit for facilities engaged in producing renewable energy technology and conservation.

Censuses have bedeviled the public since at least the days of Mary and Joseph of Nazareth

"The government doesn’t produce quality products in any worthwhile area. Indeed, its main products are taxation, regulation, inflation, and wealth redistribution – which all eventually destroy their supposed beneficiaries as surely as they do those who are handcuffed and looted."

Casey On The Census

April 18, 2010

By Doug Casey

Censuses have bedeviled the public since at least the days of Mary and Joseph of Nazareth, and they’ve never served any purpose except to give rulers more information on their subjects.
The case is made, of course, that the information gathered is also used by business. Fine, then let the businesses that need it hire pollsters to go out and get what they need at their own expense, instead of having to make the best of the hodgepodge garnered by the government.
The case is also made that, although you must give your name and address, you aren’t asked for your Social Security number. And the government can’t reveal any individual data for 70 years.
Maybe it will, or maybe it won’t. But don’t think generalized statistics, at least, aren’t crunched in a thousand different ways by IRS, NSA, FBI, DOD, CIA, DEA, and numerous other suppressive agencies to aid their missions. Local authorities have long used census data, which is broken down by the block, to search for possible zoning violations, among other things.
How many houses are on your block? Any particulars in which you stand out may serve as a flag that will at some point compromise your interests and those of your family.
Although Title 13 requires survey responses to be kept “strictly confidential,” I say that’s a guideline, at best. Census data was of critical importance in rounding up everyone of Japanese extraction in 1942 so they could be put in concentration camps. In 2002 and 2003, the U.S. Census Bureau provided information to Homeland Security that it had gathered about Arab-Americans.
In point of fact, the PATRIOT Act makes everything an open book, notwithstanding the Census Bureau’s $350 million advertising campaign.
Of course, I recognize that resistance is, if not futile, at least academic. Not filling out some form hardly makes one a modern-day Braveheart. But it’s at least a step up from cutting off those “Do Not Remove Under Penalty of Law” tags from your futon.
They’ve already determined the exact GPS coordinates of every dwelling in the country. That’s sure to be useful in the event of some “national security” emergency, or perhaps just keeping track of the over one million folks on the TSA’s Terrorist Watch List, or maybe other lists.
This is, I feel, a moral issue, much more than a technical or financial one. But, although a billion dollars is hardly even a rounding error today, it’s still worth noting the financial numbers. The cost of the census is estimated at $14.5 billion, with hiring something between 600,000 and 1.2 million people, who presumably are otherwise unemployed. They’re paid up to $22 an hour to perform various functions, contacting an estimated 134 million households. The Census Bureau estimates about 47 million households will have to be visited personally because they won’t respond by mail.
Now, it’s laudable for a member of society to go along with efforts that may improve conditions; that type of goodwill is what makes society work, and it’s why most people’s first reaction to things such as the census is “Sure. Glad to help.”
But, as I’ve tried to indicate, neighborliness is not what we’re dealing with here. You’ve got to consider the source, and it’s the same organization that sent you your tax forms. What we’re dealing with is a moral question, and the more often you roll over on these things, the easier it is to roll over the next time. You will eventually feel like a gyros on a spit in a Greek restaurant, where every time you go around, another slice is taken off, until you’re all gone. It’s no wonder the Jews in Germany went to their fates peaceably. It was just force of habit.
I’m told that anyone who fails to answer a question on his form is now liable for up to a $5,000 fine. Last time around it was $100 max, so they’re apparently getting more serious about it.
That’s a nuisance. And worse, it tends to draw attention to you. Maybe it’s one of the things that can get you put on the list of people who are “politically unreliable.” But at least they can’t yet bring out the rubber hose, electric shockers, and waterboards if you withhold everything but your name, rank, and serial number.
And in my neighborhood, I guarantee there’s at least one person who, when questioned on the whereabouts of his form, is likely to tell the nosey little geek something like “Hey, sport, if you want information, you should go down to the Information Agency. And this isn’t it.”
The whole process is counterproductive and objectionable, at best. Let’s look at the facts. After you cut through the rhetoric, doublethink, and smoke-screening altruism that surrounds the subject, you find the essence of the state in pure force – the kind that comes out of the barrel of a gun. There’s no voluntarism whatsoever about obeying laws. Only sociopaths think force is a good thing; decent people know it’s something to avoid.
It logically follows that if the state has a legal monopoly on the use of force, the state should be able to use force only to protect individuals from force. That means the purpose of government is, at most, to protect you from force outside its jurisdiction (with a defensive military of some sort); to protect you from a force inside its jurisdiction (with a police force); and to provide a court system to allow you to adjudicate disputes without resorting to force.
How, then, do all the census questions relate to any legitimate function of government? Why, not at all. Only a small and decreasing fraction of government resources actually even go toward furthering any of the government’s legitimate functions – which it does a pathetic job of  performing.
The military is run like a gigantic pork barrel operation, pulling the country toward bankruptcy while concentrating on pointlessly whacking primitive foreign hornet nests. The police harass as much as they protect and seem to direct their attention mostly to revenue generation and the enforcement of arbitrary laws. And it’s next to impossible to get into court (even if you can afford it) and equally difficult to get out once you’re in.
In fact, an excellent case can be made that defense, police, and courts are far too important to the smooth functioning of society to be left to the type of person who inevitably winds up working for the state. Certainly, when it comes to the police, I’d prefer a Mike Hammer, or even a Thomas Magnum, trying to solve a crime than the typical flatfoot whose main interest seems to be filling his quota of traffic tickets.
And private arbitration agencies that would have to compete based on the fairness, intelligence, and cost-effectiveness of their decisions would be a big step up from today’s corrupt, glacier-like and politically motivated courts.
The government doesn’t produce quality products in any worthwhile area. Indeed, its main products are taxation, regulation, inflation, and wealth redistribution – which all eventually destroy their supposed beneficiaries as surely as they do those who are handcuffed and looted.

The New Contract From America #teaparty

Remember the Republicans' Contract With America they promised to implement should they win control of Congress in 1994?  A lot of it was penny-ante inside baseball, like promising to ban committee proxy votes. 

At Tea Parties all over America yesterday (4/15), a new Contract was unveiled - a Contract From America - that tells folks in Congress what to do if they expect to be elected in November.  It is sunlight-to-moonlight better than that wimpy thing of Gingrich's 16 years ago.

It demands politicians, to get the Patriotic American vote, pledge to scrap the entire IRS tax code and replace it with one no longer than 4,543 words - the length of the Constitution - scrap Cap & Trade, scrap all earmarks... and my favorite, defund Obamacare.

Yes, the Defund Strategy, first propounded right here in TTP, then moved forward by TTPer Mitch Rapp with the Defund & Disobey website, has now been adopted by the entire Tea Party movement.  Congratulations, Mitch!  Congratulations to all TTPers who helped bring this about.

50% of Americans Get Something for Nothing; Income Taxes Are Somebody Else's Problem

WASHINGTON (AP) -- "Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it's simply somebody else's problem. About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009 (see chart above, data here). Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center.

In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17.

Tax cuts enacted in the past decade have been generous to wealthy taxpayers, too, making them a target for President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress. Less noticed were tax cuts for low- and middle-income families, which were expanded when Obama signed the massive economic recovery package last year. The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners -- households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 -- paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment. "We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing," said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation."

Health Insurance Death Spiral Will Begin on September 23, 2010

ObamaCare will have a very long roll-out. While some provisions have already come into effect, others will take many years. When will individuals and businesses first see a consequential impact on their health benefits? I believe that it will be the “slacker mandate,” which commands that health plans cover “children” up to 26 years of age on their parents’ health benefits; and comes into force six months after enactment.

September 23 will mark the beginning of the “death spiral” of private health insurance. Most people correctly anticipate the full force of the death spiral in 2014, when insurers will no longer be able to charge actuarially accurate premiums for applicants with pre-existing conditions. Applicants can wait until they become sick, and then apply for coverage which insurers must offer at a premium which is initially artificially low. This causes healthy people to drop out; and the cycle continues until the risk pool collapses. Insurers must then raise premiums to cover the guaranteed losses and avoid insolvency.

The only way to stop this is to punish healthy people who choose not to buy insurance, via a tax, fine, mandatory payroll deduction of premium, or whatever you want to call the money that the government seizes from you to hand over to Aetna, CIGNA, or whichever health plan the future Health Czar (”Health Choices Commissioner”) deems acceptable. One of the elements of ObamaCare that guarantees its instability is that the financial penalties for not complying with the mandate to carry insurance are too low to ensure that people actually maintain coverage. In 2016, the penalty will be $695 per individual [H.R. 4872§ 1002(a)(2)(c)].

Firms with over 50 employees face a fine of $2,000 per employee if they don’t offer benefits, or have low-income employees who are receiving “premium tax credits” [H.R. 4872 § 1003]. However, the fine is reduced by the first thirty employees. So, if an employer has 55 employees and offers no coverage, the assessment will be $2,000 times 25, which is $50,000. Allocated over the entire workforce of 55, the fine per employee is only $909. (The fine for employers who offer coverage but also employ workers who receive premium tax credits is a little more complicated, but the consequences are similar.) Businesses which employ 50 workers or less are exempt from these penalties. And even these penalties only take full effect in 2016, two years after the rules that require insurers to accept all applicants, regardless of health status. It is therefore likely that small and medium-sized employers will bail out of health benefits, once the government has established the ”exchanges” into which they can dump their employees, often for highly subsidized coverage. (This is what Factcheck.org means, when it claims to debunk the Republican conclusion that ObamaCare requires 16,500 new IRS agents by arguing that they will actually be doling out money, rather than taking it in.)

But we don’t have to wait until 2014 for the collapse to begin. The first phase of the death spiral will occur as early as the end of September, when very sick young adults present themselves to their parents’ employers, seeking coverage. The Senate Democratic caucus has unwittingly demonstrated this via a promotional video trumpeting the “reform.” The video’s subject is Freddie Effington, who enjoyed coverage on his parents’ employer-based plan until he turned 21 in 2005. He then went without coverage for two years “hoping to get to the job position” whereby he would get his own employer-based benefits. Tragically, Mr. Effington was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma in 2007.

Now, it is important to understand that Mr. Effington (and his parents) had choices. He could have applied for individual health insurance when he turned 21. As a healthy young man, he would likely have been able to buy it at a reasonable premium in Alabama, his state of residence. Or, he could have taken advantage of provisions of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA), by which he could have applied for coverage without underwriting [45 CFR § 148.120]. HIPAA has significant flaws (which partially explain why the call for “reform” continued after it was passed in 1996). However, it required that individuals maintain continuous creditable coverage to benefit from inclusion of coverage for pre-existing conditions. The requirement to maintain continuous creditable coverage reduced the risk of a death spiral by relying on individual responsibility rather than government power.

The new “reform” blows away that fundamental protection. As of September 23, young adults who are seriously ill and under 26 will immediately present themselves to their parents’ employers, seeking coverage. However, the majority who are healthy will not. Imagine, for example, that you are a plumbing contractor with a dozen or so employees, who offers health benefits. On September 23, you will face this unpredictable liability. One of your workers might show up seeking coverage for his 23-year old son with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma; and perhaps another one with a 25-year old daughter recently diagnosed with an equally dreadful illness. You simply cannot predict how many such cases will present themselves. As a consequence, you will seriously consider dropping health benefits as September 23 approaches.

Some number of innocent employees will be victimized by losing health benefits because of this “slacker mandate,” and compelled to navigate a health-insurance environment that is preparing for chaos. This will present an interesting opportunity for ObamaCare’s political opponents, as the country slides into the mid-term elections.

Video: The Obamapad

Andrew Klavan: We Report, You Obey - The MSM's Dirty Tea Party Fetish

Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis

America waits with bated breath while Washington struggles to bring the U.S. economy back from the brink of disaster. But many of those same politicians caused the crisis, and if left to their own devices will do so again.

Despite the mass media news blackout, a series of books, talk radio and the blogosphere have managed to expose Barack Obama's connections to his radical mentors -- Weather Underground bombers William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis and others. David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks.org have also contributed a wealth of information and have noted Obama's radical connections since the beginning.

Yet, no one to my knowledge has yet connected all the dots between Barack Obama and the Radical Left. When seen together, the influences on Obama's life comprise a who's who of the radical leftist movement, and it becomes painfully apparent that not only is Obama a willing participant in that movement, he has spent most of his adult life deeply immersed in it.

But even this doesn't fully describe the extreme nature of this candidate. He can be tied directly to a malevolent overarching strategy that has motivated many, if not all, of the most destructive radical leftist organizations in the United States since the 1960s.

Chapter III. Socialist and Communist Literature

1. Reactionary Socialism

Obama Lied about Taxes on those making Less than 250000

The correct response to being called a “teabagger”

The correct response to being called a “teabagger”
“Suck my balls!”

Charitable giving: Conservatives vs. liberals

WASHINGTON -- Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.

When I think about what Al Gore's income must be and how little of it he is willing to give away to help make a personal difference in changing the wrongs that almost all of us would agree exist in this country, well, it pisses me off. That anyone can admire this man -- this very embodiment of hypocrisy (in a wide range of disciplines) -- amazes me.

This is the same guy who castigates the rest of us for the little things we do in our everyday lives and yet whose carbon footprint would stamp a ****ed-fancy tootsie-size swimming pool that all of our kids (and all of their friends) could splash in.

Obama's charitable donations expressed as a % of his income

I found this to be rather interesting list, it's Obama's charitable donations expressed as a % of his income...do you notice how his hitherto miserly contributions suddenly INCREASE as his political prospects increase? Mmmmm...now surely Obama wouldn't be just another calculating political opportunist, would he?

2006: 6.1%
2005: 4.7%
2004: 1.2%
2003: 1.4%
2002: 0.4%
2001: 0.5%
2000: 0.9%

VID: How the Federal Reserve Enabled the Greatest Theft in American History

Uninsured must pay or get a fine! This so called 'health care' is a hoax. It's 'wealth care'!

March 22nd 2010 - This so called 'health care' is a hoax. It's 'wealth care'! Because contrary to what is said by the propaganda-media, all citizens of the U.S. are now, som 200 years later, obliged to pay premiums to Big Pharma. And most of those - and in reality it's at least fifty million neglected people - even couldn't pay the sky-high premiums for so called 'health care' one way or the other. Now they must, or get a fine... Victory? For whom? Who profits?

So now, thanks to Obama who's the 'front man' for the criminal cartel and the rest of the collaborators in the US, everybody must pay or get a fine. What a 'victory'! How the hell can this the world over be 'sold' as 'an overhaul'? As 'a reform for the better'?

People must wake up more and more to the ugly reality. Know that they are ruled by psychopathic murderers, thieves and robbers. The pharmaceutical firms - which are, and always have been, part and parcel of the criminal cartel - are killing the people which they first make sick, and making a lot of money on it, that's what. And nothing else.

IRS to Serve as Health Reform Enforcer, but Lacks Authority to Enforce

The health care reform bill to be signed Tuesday by President Obama would give the IRS a new mandate to enforce some of measures key provisions — but apparently not the means to do so.

Under the Senate bill approved Sunday by the House, the Internal Revenue Service would be called on to ensure Americans are obtaining health care insurance and businesses are offering it, or else they could face fines. Many would receive subsidies to help pay for insurance.

The emphasis is on incentives for healthy people to buy insurance, thereby spreading the risk of older, less healthy people over a broader pool of customers. For those earning between $22,050 and $88,200, there are tax credits for health insurance premiums. In addition, individuals initially face fines of up to $750 for not buying in; businesses would face fines of up to $3,000.

It will cost the IRS $5 billion to $10 billion over 10 years to handle the new workload, according to a March 11 estimate by the Congressional Budget Office. But the Senate bill doesn’t provide any funding for the expansion of the IRS, and it virtually ties the hands of the IRS to collect fees on individuals and businesses who don’t buy health insurance.

“The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty," according to the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation. "Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner."

That means there’s virtually nothing the IRS can do to enforce the fines in the legislation, forcing the tax man to rely on the consciences of taxpayers or to skim off any federal benefits, tax credits or refunds they have coming to them.

"In other words, if you're due a refund or some other federal benefit, and you didn't obtain qualified insurance, your refund or benefit will be tapped for your fee,” said Bill Ahearn, director of policy and communications for the Tax Foundation.

“People who aren't due any refunds or federal benefits will apparently face no collection action, as the IRS's hands will be effectively tied and it will be a truly voluntary tax."

Supporters of the bill, however, believe that while the IRS needs to be able to enforce the fines, it’s unlikely that the agency's inability to do so will give people a reason not to buy into health care.

“Surveys routinely show that people don't pay for health care because they can't afford it,” said Timothy Jost, a professor at Washington & Lee University Law School. “This bill gives them a way they can afford it.”

Wouldn't it be funny if no providers except Obamacare. Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16

Effective April 16, Walgreens drugstores across the state won't take any new Medicaid patients, saying that filling their prescriptions is a money-losing proposition — the latest development in an ongoing dispute over Medicaid reimbursement.

The company, which operates 121 stores in the state, will continue filling Medicaid prescriptions for current patients.

In a news release, Walgreens said its decision to not take new Medicaid patients stemmed from a "continued reduction in reimbursement" under the state's Medicaid program, which reimburses it at less than the break-even point for 95 percent of brand-name medications dispensed to Medicaid patents.

Walgreens follows Bartell Drugs, which stopped taking new Medicaid patients last month at all 57 of its stores in Washington, though it still fills Medicaid prescriptions for existing customers at all but 15 of those stores.

Doug Porter, the state's director of Medicaid, said Medicaid recipients should be able to readily find another pharmacy because "we have many more pharmacy providers in our network than we need" for the state's 1 million Medicaid clients.

Tax Bloat: Your Fat State Government Won't Give The Money Back They Took From You - Where's the Interest

New York State Tax Refunds Put On Hold
Gov. Paterson Freezes $500 Million, Says Financial Situation The Case, Won't Start Sending Again Until April 1

For hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers, the check won't be in the mail -- at least not on time. New York State has stopped paying tax refunds and won't start again until next month.

The tax refund delay is part of a bigger cash crunch.

"deem and pass" = Virginia & other states will sue over health care

A spokesman for Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R) said this afternoon that Virginia will file suit against the federal government if the Democratic health care reform bill is approved by the U.S. Congress.

Cuccinelli has long said he was examining the legal issues and suggested he would likely file suit. Brian Gottstein, a spokesman for the office, said this afternoon that a lawsuit is now a definite. Gottstein would provide no details of the legal rationale for such a suit, indicating the process is "still being worked out."

Virginia last week became the first state in the country to pass a state bill declaring it illegal for the government to require individuals to purchase health insurance, a key part of bills under consideration on Capitol Hill.

We are also expecting to receive a letter shortly that Cuccinelli is sending to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warning her that using the so-called "deem and pass" procedure to pass the Senate health reform bill in the House would open the measure to additional constitutional challenges from the states.

VIDEO: How Modern Liberals Think by Evan Sayet

The modern liberal looks back in history and says none of the religions, ideas, philosophies, ideologies, or forms of government have created a society devoid of war, crime, poverty nor injustice. Therefore, the real cause of these must be caused by the attempt to be right.

Video: God doesn’t listen to Joe Biden

Or maybe God just figured that Joe Biden wasn’t terribly serious about this 2005 prayer, unearthed by Breitbart TV and Naked Emperor News today. He was not the only Democrat bemoaning “majoritarian, absolute power,” either, or complaining about unilateral rules changes at that time. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton join Biden as current administration officials who have suddenly seen the light of majoritarian power:

“I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.”

Dianne Feinstein said on the Senate floor that “it begins with judicial nominations, next will be executive appointments, and then legislation.” Now, Democrats want to skip over the first two — which never happened — and leap right to legislation. Chuck Schumer called the 2005 suggestion to exempt judicial nominations from the filibuster as “almost a temper tantrum”; if that was the case in 2005, what does 2010 represent? A psychotic break from reality? Strauitjacket time?
It smells like desperation from a political party groaning under the heavy burden … of an eighteen-seat majority.

VIDEO: Glenn Beck on the Statue of Liberty - from CPAC Keynote Speech #Beck

Bill Bennett, Leave #Beck Alone and Can Keep Your Old and Dumb RINO Republican Party

Dear Bill,

Keep your TeaParty criticisms to yourself.  We have seen how well your "old decrepit" Republican guard politics have worked.  The TeaParty has advanced the conservative cause way more over the last year than your whole political career all together.

_rd1776

Sunday, February 21, 2010 Saturday Night Beck    [Bill Bennett]

There’s a lot to say about CPAC. This morning the major papers are highlighting Glenn Beck’s speech. I like Glenn a lot and I think he has something to teach us. But not what he offered last night.

Analogizing his own struggles with alcohol to the problems of our polity and in our politics, he said, “Hello, my name is the Republican party, and I have a problem!” “I’m addicted to spending and big government.” ”It is still morning in America.” ”It just happens to be kind of a head-pounding, hung-over, vomiting-for-four-hours kind of morning in America. And it’s shaping up to be kind of a nasty day. But it is still morning in America.” And, again, “I believe in redemption, but the first step to getting redemption is you’ve got to admit that you’ve got a problem. I have not heard people in the Republican party yet admit that they have a problem.”

Read the rest here...

Joe Stack's Suicide Note Here #joestack

Read link from the SmokingGun.com

Read link from the NY Post 

Austin IRS Bomber inspired by progressive ideology #joestack

Suicide Bomber of Austin IRS Building uses progressive/Marxist beliefs to justify 9/11 style attack

While Joe Stack, the suicide bomber who flew his plane into the Austin, TX IRS office, owed money to the IRS and had experienced hardships through IRS rule changes and bad tax advice, his underlying motivation was tied to progressive/marxist ideology.

What enabled Joe Stack to climb into his plane and fly into the IRS building was rooted in his Left Wing ideology, which be revealed through the now famous suicide note left at

http://embeddedart.com/

Plane crash pilot left anti-IRS Web note #joestack

AUSTIN, Texas — A software engineer furious with the Internal Revenue Service plowed his small plane into an office building housing nearly 200 federal tax employees today, officials said, setting off a raging fire that sent workers fleeing as thick plumes of black smoke poured into the air.

A US law official identified the pilot as Joseph Stack — whose home was set on fire just before the crash — and said investigators were looking at an anti-government message on the Web linked to him.

The Web site outlines problems with the IRS and says violence “is the only answer.”

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/plane_hits_building_in_austin_tx_RtOlnluhjKozyjw2m2D3IL#ixzz0fwfRB1Ln

Why America Sucks to Democrats

Democrats are convinced that Americans keep electing Republicans either because they are stupid, or because the DNC message just isn’t reaching the electorate. How could their message not reach the electorate when the lamestream press covers their message daily on every front page?


Their message is out there, we hear it, we get it - it isn’t that complicated. Even my second grader gets it. Today’s DNC campaign platform can be summed up in two words… “AMERICA SUCKS!”


In short, nothing about America is right or good in the eyes of Democrats and their campaign message is, nothing short of a complete DNC victory can change that. This is their message… Everything sucks and only Democrats can fix it… We get it… We hear you loud and clear – like a broken record actually.


The war on terror SUCKS! Bush lied, people died, terrorists did nothing to us, we caused it all, we can’t win, Islamic terrorists are “freedom fighters” and American soldiers are “Nazis”. We hear you! We suck!


Our economy SUCKS! Matter of fact, capitalism and our free market system SUCKS! Capitalism only rewards those who earn, leaving those who don’t behind and that SUCKS! We get it! Socialism is better – we hear you!

Read more...

How Obama’s Tax Attack Will Hurt Everyone (Whether You’re a Rich Business Owner Or Not!)

Earn $75,000 a Year? Obama’s Coming After You Too!

Oh and by the way, if you make as much as $75,000 a year…Obama’s coming after you too through the Alternative Minimum Tax.
This will tax families earning between $75,000 and $500,000 a year more than they had in the past. So the AMT which was only originally designed to affect millionaires will now affect those earning $75,000 a year!
Any time the tax burden increases, job creation is much slower. Also, the expansion of corporate profits slows down.
This horrendous combo will cause stocks to tank once again!
Any time the government zaps this much of corporate earnings through extra taxation, it weighs upon earnings growth. That in turn will weigh upon stock prices have to be ratcheted down to match the lower earnings growth rates.
However, when stocks start to fall, they will not only fall to match those lower earnings levels but they will fall much further. Why? A stock market downtrend causes more fear and more panic and feeds off of itself. It causes stocks to overshoot to the downside

Millions in Stimulus Spending Being Doled Out for Questionable Jobs

Federal agencies are spending stimulus money at the rate of $196 million an hour. And they will do so every hour for the next eight months until a September 30, 2010, deadline.

Government Adopts Religion: U.S. proposes new climate service #gorehoax #obamafail

The Obama administration proposed a new climate service on Monday that would provide Americans with predictions on how global warming will affect everything from drought to sea levels.

Iran delivers stunning punch to West by attacking its own people

The far right, convinced that Iranian Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were planning to destroy the world today with its massive, unchecked nuclear arsenal, can rest easy thus far, as Iran seems only intent on showing the world it’s military might by making life Hell for its own people.

In his address, Mr. Ahmadinejad praised the achievements of the Iranian people and railed against the West.
Meantime, opposition Web sites say security forces fired tear gas to disperse opposition supporters gathered in central Tehran.
There are also reports that leading reformist politicians Mehdi Karroubi and former President Mohammad Khatami were attacked. …
An Iranian security official, Police Chief Ismail Ahmadi Moghaddam, told Iranian media Wednesday that authorities are prepared to deal with anyone trying to disrupt state-run rallies. He said several people have already been detained for organizing protests

Many in the U.S. had been prepared for the worst after Khamenei said on Monday that Iran is set to deliver a “punch” that will stun world powers. Top conservative thinkers like Michael Leeden were telling Israel to be prepared for the worst.

“What might he have in mind? I don’t know; they say a lot of things just for effect, but threats/promises from the supreme leader have a certain standing. If I were an Israeli official, I’d recheck my information on Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.”

Luckily, for the 10,000th consecutive time, it now appears that Iran was sabre-rattling ahead of a celebration, and Iran won’t be attempting a national suicide mission into Israel. They’ll just be teaching their own people who’s boss.

It Happened. The moron left has claimed the DC snow is DUE to global warming #green #eco

NYT: THE BLIZZARDS ARE FROM THE WARMING...

Climate-Change Debate Is Heating Up in Deep Freeze

By JOHN M. BRODER
WASHINGTON — As millions of people along the East Coast hole up in their snowbound homes, the two sides in the climate-change debate are seizing on the mounting drifts to bolster their arguments.

Skeptics of global warming are using the record-setting snows to mock those who warn of dangerous human-driven climate change — this looks more like global cooling, they taunt.

Most climate scientists respond that the ferocious storms are consistent with forecasts that a heating planet will produce more frequent and more intense weather events.

But some independent climate experts say the blizzards in the Northeast no more prove that the planet is cooling than the lack of snow in Vancouver or the downpours in Southern California prove that it is warming.

As an illustration of their point of view, the family of Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, a leading climate skeptic in Congress, built a six-foot-tall igloo on Capitol Hill and put a cardboard sign on top that read “Al Gore’s New Home.”

The extreme weather, Mr. Inhofe said by e-mail, reinforced doubts about scientists’ conclusion that global warming was “unequivocal” and most likely caused by human activity.

Nonsense, responded Joseph Romm, a climate-change expert and former Energy Department official who writes about climate issues at the liberal Center for American Progress.

About that “Green Police” Super Bowl ad #green #eco #algorefail

About that “Green Police” Super Bowl ad

By Michelle Malkin  •  February 8, 2010 01:00 PM

Some of you think Audi’s “Green Police” ad that ran during the Super Bowl last night was brilliant satire. Others were creeped out. Count me in the creeped-out camp.
If you missed it, here it is:
Now, here is the context you need to judge which side Audi is on — from the company’s “Audi Green Police” website:

The Second American Revolution: Defund and Disobey the Fascists

The left's anti-American coup d'etat on America, made possible by the first radical Marxist in the White House, calls for distinctly American counter measures.
Dr. Jack Wheeler has "a strategy for any Republican wanting to get elected or re-elected to Congress in 2010, and for any Tea Partyer wanting to take individual action now against a government that ignores the Constitution --  Defund and Disobey."
Here's an excerpt of "The Double -D Strategy for rescuing America":
Let's talk about the Defund D first.  The Founders in their usual brilliance place the power of the purse in the House, whose members must face election every two years - for if they become profligate with this power the voters can throw them out within months (24 max) rather than wait years (6) like the Senate.

All Appropriation bills authorizing any branch of the federal government (legislative, judicial, executive) to spend any money for any program must be initiated in and passed by a majority of the House.  The Senate can only agree or disagree, and the same with the President.

The obverse of this appropriation authority is that if the House doesn't authorize money for something, then no money can be spent on that something by anyone in the federal government.

This was Senator Jim Inhofe's point when he announced (12/13) that "Obama has no power to make a deal in Copenhagen."  Unless the House appropriates the money for any deal he makes, there's no deal at all.

[...]

Currently, this is the best that can be done at the federal legislative level.  That is, the key goal of House & Senate Republicans is to block the passage of Dem legislation that will expand government and make our economy so much worse than it already is.  There is no way for the Pubs to pass legislation that will make things better - and this is true even if the Republicans gain majority in the House in 2010 due to Zero's veto power.

There is another way.  One key solution to solving our problems, economic and social, is to get the federal government out of the way.  To the extent that this requires positive legislative remedies - such as eliminating capital gains taxes, the depreciation schedule for capital expenses, and Sarbox - these will have to wait until we get a pro-capitalist president instead of a pro-socialist in 2012.

This means we must focus on negative legislative remedies that the Pubs can effect with a House majority right after 2010 and not wait until 2012.  They can simply refuse to fund Zero's programs.  The Zero Administration is adding some 10,000 new federal employees to government payrolls every month?  Eliminate the funding to pay them, requiring that their jobs be terminated.

ObamaCare is passed by the House & Senate and is made law, providing for a government seizure of one-sixth of the economy?  Refuse to appropriate the money to fund the administrative apparatus required.

The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) wants to conduct a carbon jihad and seize control over the economy by regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant?  Gut the EPA's budget and thus its ability to do so.

NASA and other government agencies continue to conduct climate fraud?  Zero out all funding for global warming research.

Thus, in order to gain the support of TeaPartyers and plain normal voters for their candidacy, Republicans wishing to get elected or re-elected to the House should be required to sign The Defund Pledge:

"Should I be elected, I solemnly pledge to my constituents that I will consistently vote to defund, or vote against appropriating any money for, any federal program or activity not specifically authorized by an enumerated power in the United States Constitution.  For any federal program or activity I do vote to fund, I will provide the specific enumerated power constitutionally permitting it."

It's the only "purity test" conservatives need.

Just as the "Contract with America" enabled Republicans to gain a House majority in 1994, so the Defund Pledge will ensure they do so in 2010.  The voting public is increasingly fed up with the Dems.  But they are still wary of the Pubs who refused to shut off the spending spigots during the Bush years. 

The Defund Pledge can reassure voters that the GOP will in fact dismantle Democrat fascism by committing to a concrete and simple way to do so:  defund the Dem programs and on a Constitutional basis.

It provides the starkest contrast to the insufferably outlaw arrogance of Dems, epitomized by Nancy Pelosi, who when asked where in the Constitution was it allowed for the federal government to force people to buy something (e.g., health insurance), angrily responded, "Are you kidding me?  Are you kidding me?"

And it gives the TeaPartyers the single uniting electoral message they are searching for.  Right now, the TeaParty movement is inchoate, more emotion than focus.  As this article points out, "the biggest challenge facing the movement is how to organize hundreds of local groups, and dozens of Tea Party leaders nationwide with divergent interests, into a force that can influence elections."

The Defund Pledge solves the challenge.

And yet... the 2010 elections are next November and the new Congress, presumably with a Republican majority, won't take office until the end of January 2011.  The amount of damage Zero and the Dems can do until then is monumental - on top of the damage they have already done this year.  How can that be prevented and undone?  What can be done now?

The answer is the second D:  Disobey.  Disobey the Ghandi Way.  Peaceful civil disobedience.  No violence.  Just the refusal to obey fascist and unconstitutional laws.

Feds push for tracking cell phones

Two years ago, when the FBI was stymied by a band of armed robbers known as the "Scarecrow Bandits" that had robbed more than 20 Texas banks, it came up with a novel method of locating the thieves.

FBI agents obtained logs from mobile phone companies corresponding to what their cellular towers had recorded at the time of a dozen different bank robberies in the Dallas area. The voluminous records showed that two phones had made calls around the time of all 12 heists, and that those phones belonged to men named Tony Hewitt and Corey Duffey. A jury eventually convicted the duo of multiple bank robbery and weapons charges.

Even though police are tapping into the locations of mobile phones thousands of times a year, the legal ground rules remain unclear, and federal privacy laws written a generation ago are ambiguous at best. On Friday, the first federal appeals court to consider the topic will hear oral arguments (PDF) in a case that could establish new standards for locating wireless devices.

In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.

Those claims have alarmed the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, which have opposed the Justice Department's request and plan to tell the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that Americans' privacy deserves more protection and judicial oversight than what the administration has proposed.

"This is a critical question for privacy in the 21st century," says Kevin Bankston, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who will be arguing on Friday. "If the courts do side with the government, that means that everywhere we go, in the real world and online, will be an open book to the government unprotected by the Fourth Amendment."

REPEAL THE 17TH TO REVIVE THE 10TH! #teaparty

by Tony Blankley – Columnist, author
Posted: January 27, 2010 12:03 PM
Repeal the 17th Amendment
As I was preparing to write a column on the ludicrous maligning of the Tea Party movement by liberals, Democrats and the mainstream media (which I hope to write next week, instead), I started thinking about one of the key objectives of the Tea Party people — the strict enforcement of the 10th Amendment (”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”).
As an early 1960s vintage member of the then-new conservative movement, I remember us focusing on the 10th amendment during the 1964 Goldwater campaign. It has been a staple of conservative thought, and the continued dormancy of 10th amendment enforcement has been one of the failures of our now half-century-old movement.
But just as the Tea Party movement in so many ways seems to represent the 2.0 version of our movement, so I again thought about the 10th amendment anew. After about 10 seconds’ thought, it struck me that the best way to revive the 10th Amendment is to repeal the 17th Amendment…

Read the rest here

An Inside Look at #ofa Obama’s Organizing for America Part I

Obama's "permanent campaign" Organizing for America has managed to skirt campaign finance laws while continually providing the unprecedented "opportunity to help the president." Countless emails fill boxes across America with the sender name President Barack Obama.

Organizing for America has kept a high profile and played a key role in the healthcare debate. Obama's managed to turn his extraordinary campaign model into a post-election campaign/organizing website where OFA honed their method of using the internet to reach progressives to push through his increasingly unpopular agenda.

During Barack Obama's campaign he used a similar tool and website called "Obama for America." Utilizing the skills he learned at ACORN as a community organizer, Obama was able to acquire the "highest office in the land". In an election night quote from November of 2008, Obama addresses a crowd who voted for "Hope" and "Change."

Video: Dems cheer after raising Americans' debt limit to $14,294,000,000,000

In Texas, 31% Say State Has Right to Secede From U.S., But 75% Opt To Stay

Thirty-one percent (31%) of Texas voters say that their state has the right to secede from the United States and form an independent country.

 However, the latest Rasmussen Reports poll in the state finds that if the matter was put to a vote, it wouldn’t even be close. Three-fourths (75%) of Lone Star State voters would opt to remain in the United States. Only 18% would vote to secede, and seven percent (7%) are not sure what they’d choose.
Texas Governor Rick Perry, in response to a reporter’s question about secession at a protest “tea party,” said Wednesday, “We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that? But Texas is a very unique place, and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot.” The comment was widely reported in the media.
Read entire article

Nebraska legislators seek to assert state sovereignty

At least three Nebraska lawmakers want to send a message to the federal government:
Butt out of state business.
Next year they will see if a majority of their colleagues agrees.
The senators are working on resolutions asserting Nebraska’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.
Nebraska wouldn’t try to secede from the union under their proposals but would go on record objecting to federal laws that they say go beyond constitutional authority.
“My goal here is to shine light on the fact that the federal government is overstepping its bounds,” said State Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln. “We would be making a statement on behalf of Nebraska.”
Read entire article

The True State of the Union: We Have No Rights Whatsoever

Campaign for Liberty
February 4, 2010

	Obama delivers the State of the Union.

It has been almost a week since President Obama gave his first State of the Union address, and it has been analyzed from the left, right, center, front, and back. Of course, the speech is really about the performance of the federal government, particularly its wonderful accomplishments under the leadership of the sitting president. This is not peculiar to the Obama presidency. As far back as Jefferson, presidents have used the Constitutionally-mandated stump speech to do a little self-promotion, although what they promote has certainly changed quite dramatically.
However, if the speech is supposed to reflect the accomplishments of the federal government, then we should expect that it will contain specifics about how that government has fulfilled its purpose, which is, as we all know, to secure our rights. At least that’s what our founding document tells us. Therefore, if a president is going to do a little bragging about what a great job he has done, it would be logical to assume that we would hear particulars about the way in which he has secured our rights. Logic, however, has little to do with the machinations of leviathan.
In fairness, President Obama did begin his speech with a few remarks about the actual state of our country – a state of economic devastation and unending war. The fact that both of these afflictions have been caused wholly by our federal government is something that seems to have gone right by him, although he is not unique in that respect, either. Having reminded us about how bad things are, he dutifully lays as much blame as possible on the president that preceded him (another time-honored tradition when succeeding a president of the opposing party). He then moves right into trumpeting his accomplishments.
Read entire article

Mark Dice on TV again: Boycott the Super Bowl and read a book instead

Only days after making news on a Florida TV station, Mark Dice makes broadcast TV a second time in Los Angeles in a bid to convince people– some people at least– to boycott the SuperBowl and focus instead our excitement, anger and energy on the political looting of our country. Instead of a competition with no real impact on our lives, people should educate themselves on the things that really matter.

Mark Dice calls the SuperBowl, and TV in general, the opiate of the masses. That is perhaps too much to swallow the anchors.

Dice stirs up the pro-sports anchors with his iconoclastic suggestion to ignore the annual installment of the world’s most televised competition, and manages to plug Alex Jones’ Fall of the Republic and The Obama Deception to the masses as well.

Obama Blasted for Revealing Christmas Bomber Details

The White House strongly rejected assertions by Sen. Kit Bond on Thursday that administration officials defied an FBI request for secrecy when it held a briefing with reporters Tuesday about Christmas bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's cooperation with authorities.

In a letter to President Obama, Bond, R-Mo., scolded the White House for revealing the details of the interrogations, saying the administration is undermining national security by providing details the FBI specifically asked not be revealed.

Intel Boss Blair: Government Plans to Kill Citizens

Patsies take heed. The U.S. government will kill you. That’s what the Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair told a House intelligence committee yesterday. The Department of Defense will “follow a set of defined policy and legal procedures that are very carefully observed” in the use of lethal force against U.S. citizens who make the mistake of joining organizations created by the CIA and the Mossad.

The CIA created al-Qaeda from scratch in Afghanistan. Hamas was created by Mossad in order to undermine the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Both countries have long and sordid histories of creating terrorist organizations for political purposes.

CIA Director Leon Panetta, appearing before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said the groups threatening the homeland include al-Qaeda and Hamas.

“As the United States steps up its campaign against suspected terrorists overseas, it has become more apparent that some extremists may be U.S. citizens,” reports the CIA’s favorite newspaper, The Washington Post.

Obama is an arrogant, un-Presidential so and so….

Does Obama’s arrogance and condescension know no bounds?

He says: “Republicans….they just do as their told”

It is like experiencing fingernails on a chalkboard to watch, but just experience ”un-presidentialness” (is that a word?) of your President!

Support the Valour IT Project

We've supported Soldiers' Angels Project Valour ITproject in the past, but haven't posted on it yet this year. It's a wonderful cause, described succinctly by Soldiers' Angels:

Project Valour-IT helps provide voice-controlled/adaptive laptop computers and other technology to support Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines recovering from hand wounds and other severe injuries. Items supplied include: Voice-controlled Laptops, Wii Video Game Systems and Personal GPS.

The campaign goes through November 11; so far, over $50,000 has been raised. It features friendly competition among the military services.

Cassandra of Villainous Company asked us to support the Marine team this year. It was a hard request to turn down, given that her husband is a Marine currently serving in Afghanistan. So, to help an eminently worthwhile cause, just click on the graphic below:

'Principled' GOP candidate would have won #ny23

A pro-life group that backed Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman says the Democratic special election victory in New York's 23rd Congressional District is actually a win for motivated conservative activists.

The Top Ten Reasons the Baucus Healthcare Plan is Bad for America

1. No bill and no transparency. The Baucus “bill” is no bill at all but a 300 page outline and summary of what a bill would look like. The actual bill will contain over 1,000 pages and is yet to be completed. Democrats have voted down an amendment to make it available for 72 hours before a vote, so when it is brought to the Senate floor for a vote, no senator will have read it.

2. Higher spending. The Baucus “summary” is a big spending bill rather than health care legislation. The cost has been estimated at $829 billion over ten years (and will surely go much higher), and the legislation would raise taxes on everybody, including the middle class. The Congressional Budget Office says it would leave 25 million people uninsured.


3. Higher taxes. The Baucus summary includes at least $327 billion in new taxes -- a tax on high-cost insurance plans ($210 billion), penalties for not having insurance ($27 billion), and “indirect offsets” (whatever they are -- $83 billion). State taxes will surely rise as costs are fobbed off on state governments in the form of more Medicaid spending.

4. Higher health insurance premiums. According to an independent study done by an actuary and the Council for Affordable Health Insurance: Health insurance rates will almost double for most American families who buy their own policies if Congress passes universal coverage, guaranteed issue and modified community rating! These are all main features in both versions of the Senate bill. On top of this families will be fined $759-$1,500 if they do not buy insurance, even if they cannot afford it.

5. Hidden Employer Mandate. The Baucus summary includes an employer mandate -- watered-down, but still there. There is no specific requirement for employers to provide insurance, but any employer who fails to do so would have to pay the cost of all subsidies that the government provides his workers to help them pay for insurance on their own, up to $400 per worker. Since it will ultimately be the employee who pays the cost of the mandate, through reduced compensation or reduced employment, the government will be giving the worker a subsidy with one hand and taking it back with the other.

6. Tax Dollars for Abortion. Current federal law protects American taxpayers from paying for abortions as part of the health benefits given to federal employees -- not one of the insurance plans offered includes abortion coverage. To maintain the “status quo” on abortion any health care bill would have to explicitly prevent federal dollars from being used for elective abortions. Provisions that would have done that were defeated by all five committees that have handled health care reform bills this year.

7. Big cuts in Medicare Advantage. The Baucus summary cuts payments to the Medicare Advantage program. In response, many insurers may stop participating in the program while others could increase the premiums they charge seniors. Millions of seniors (the bulk will be lower-income elderly and minorities) will be forced off their current plan and back into traditional Medicare.

8. No more Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). The bills that each committee has approved in the Senate and House would eliminate HSAs as an affordable health insurance option for Americans. The government would determine what each health insurance plan looks like, and after all the requirements, mandates, and regulations, the high-deductible health plans that accompany tax-free HSAs would not qualify as an acceptable health insurance product.

9. Invades Patients’ Privacy. The Baucus summary would eliminate patients’ rights to health privacy and a patient’s right to control sensitive health information in electronic systems. Every American would be required to have an electronic health record by 2014 and all electronic health records will be data mined without legal and ethical informed consent.

10. Ignores Tort Reform. Despite the fact that medical malpractice litigation adds billions of dollars to health care bills and results in billions (some estimate as much as $100 billion) being spent on defensive medicine, the Baucus summary makes no attempt to fix this curse on our system.

Do Tax Cuts Cost the Government Money?

Whenever tax cuts are discussed in Washington, the media and most politicians use the phrase, “cost to government.” “How much will this tax cut cost the government?” we are asked, as though some crime is being contemplated when we consider reducing taxes. The American people have every right to fund the federal government at whatever level they deem acceptable, and if they choose – through their elected representatives – to reduce that funding level, they are not somehow injuring the government. If Congresses passes a new law that results in you paying $1000 less in taxes next year, have you taken something from the government that rightfully belongs to it? Or has the government simply taken less from you?

You don’t cost the government money, the government costs you money!

Of course it’s reasonable to demand that politicians cut spending when they cut taxes. That’s the definition of real fiscal conservatism: government should not take too much from the private economy in taxes, but neither should it spend too much and run up deficits. That’s why I vote against the wasteful appropriations bills that relentlessly increase federal spending year after year.

I reject the notion that tax cuts harm the economy. The economy suffers when government takes money from your paycheck that you otherwise would spend, save, or invest. Taxes never create prosperity. Private-sector innovation and productivity are the engines that drive our economy, regardless of what politicians tell us.

Tax reduction is my first priority in Congress. The reality is that most working Americans lose about half of their incomes to federal, state, and local taxes. “Tax Freedom Day,” representing the portion of the year you must work to pay for government at all levels, is roughly June 1st for most Americans. Imagine all of your hard work this year between January and the end of May going to the government!

One tax in particular should be eliminated as soon as possible – the tax on Social Security benefits. Those benefits were never taxed between the 1930s and 1984. Treating them as taxable income represents nothing more than a trick to reduce Social Security benefits by stealth. I supported legislation that successfully repealed a 1993 tax increase on benefits, and my own bill, HR 180, would go further and eliminate all taxes on Social Security. Our seniors paid taxes throughout their working lives to fund the Social Security system, and it is immoral to tax them again on their benefits.

Various other taxes also must be reduced. Capital gains taxes are terribly counterproductive, punishing those who save and invest. Payroll taxes impose a tremendous compliance burden on businesses, especially smaller entrepreneurs who cannot hire an accounting department. Federal gas taxes should be slashed to provide taxpayers relief at the pump. Most importantly, federal spending must be dramatically reduced so that all Americans can go back to working for themselves instead of working to pay their taxes.

by Ron Paul