Category Archives: morality

Once More on Taxes

Posted on by
Reply

Here are some tax changes scheduled for 1 Jan, unless the Republicans in the House can convince the Democrats in the Senate and White House to act responsibly.

  • the Bush tax reductions expire—across the board.  Low- and middle-income Americans will see their Federal income taxes rise by $3700-$4100.  Per year.
  • the payroll tax “holiday,” a 2% reduction in the Social Security/Medicare tax paid by employees (which actually did nothing but accelerate the defunding of Social Security and Medicare)
  • Obamacare taxes go into effect–$36 billion worth of them.  One of the most egregious of these is the tax on total revenue (not even limited to profit; companies losing money also will pay this—or go out of business faster, or go elsewhere to work their creativity) on medical device manufacturers for successfully innovating and producing such things as pace makers and artificial joints.
  • AMT patch will expire.  This will hit 15% of households making $75,000-$100,000 per year.  The upper bound for Obamacare’s health “insurance” premium subsidy payments is $90,000.  Go figure.
  • the death tax will rise to 55% of an estate above $1 million—up from $0 on any size as recently as 2010.

And so on.

This is what President Barack Obama insists he will allow to occur unless he gets his precious tax rate increases on the evil 2% of Americans he so despises.

Europe and Terrorism

Posted on by
Reply

In preparation for the upcoming meeting between the European Union’s various foreign ministers and their Arab League counterparts, Spiegel International Online interviewed Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn on, among other things, Israeli settlement building.  This exchange, in particular, was interesting [emphasis added]:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Violence is also escalating in the Gaza Strip.

Asselborn: No one can or should justify violence—not even if it originates with Palestinians in Gaza.

Not even if it originates with terrorists.

And this exchange:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has offered to meet the Palestinian president immediately in Ramallah or Jerusalem for peace talks.  Why are the Palestinians rejecting this offer?

Asselborn: Because it is just lip service. The Israeli settlement policy is an affront to every Palestinian because it is a constant provocation.

But, of course, the constant rocket attacks and the steady drumbeat of suicide bombing attempts from Gaza aren’t at all provocative.

No, if it’s an Israeli move, it’s just lip service; if it’s a PLO or Hamas move, it’s entirely innocent and sincere.

Hmm….

Good News

Posted on by
Reply

There really is some coming out of the election last Tuesday.

Reelecting President Obama notwithstanding, voters validated central conservative tenets:

  • Exit polls demonstrate that by a 51%-43% margin, Americans believe that today’s government already does too much that more properly belongs to the private sector.
  • By a 63%-33% spread, Americans said not to raise taxes as a means of cutting the Federal budget deficit.
  • Concerning the economy, the national debt, and the budget deficit generally, the voters preferred the Republican over the Democrat.
  • Voters also reelected an overwhelmingly conservative and Republican House, thereby explicitly and materially validating the House’s expression of those conservative tenets over the last two years.

There’s more.

In California, Democrats won voter approval to raise the top income tax rate to 13.3%.  More importantly, they also won a legislative supermajority.  California has in its state constitution an amendment requiring a two-thirds majority of both houses of the state’s government in order to raise taxes.  The Democrats have won that two-thirds majority in both houses.

Now we’ll have an object lesson, fresh in our minds at the time of the 2016 elections, about the outcome of Progressive policies implemented wholesale.  California will be that demonstration.  Watch carefully.

This Is Entirely Appropriate

Posted on by
1

This is the response of Staten Islanders to Sandy and the nor-easter.

A lifelong Staten Island resident, Gennaro, is recruiting volunteers for the local Brown Cross and the Gateway Rotary Foundation to organize supply posts and dispatches along the island.  So far, they have an estimated 2,000 volunteers, many contractors, who are taking matters into their own hands by fixing homes, draining basements, and clearing debris.

Gennaro adds

We are not leaving our properties for other people to rebuild.  There is nowhere for these people to go.  You have to rebuild quickly.  We got to get back up.

This is private citizens and private enterprise acting first.  Government has a role, but it must come second.

Indeed, the promised Federal and state help has been notably absent from Staten Island—even that second-place role is going unfulfilled.  Without making judgments on the Federal or state agencies, they will always be late to the crisis relief and recovery effort.  Government performance on Staten Island simply emphasizes the necessity, as well as the morality, of local community response first and promptly.  Only those on the scene can act quickly.

These folks could still use lots of help, though.

Gennaro says they are in need of building supplies—not food—and private donations that can go directly to families.  He guarantees 90% will go directly to buying warehouse and building materials.  Things like electrical panels, circuit breakers, sheet rock, roofing, boilers, etc.

You can contribute here:

Compromise

Posted on by
Reply

President Obama, in the aftermath of his reelection, says he wants bipartisanship and compromise in finding solutions to the nearby fiscal cliff and to the longer term problems of his deficits and his national debt.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) says the same.

But bipartisanship, the last several times around, has meant “be reasonable, do it our way.”

After all, it was Obama who said to the House (then-)Minority Leader Eric Cantor (R, VA), “Eric, I won” and to Senator John McCain (R, AZ), “John, the election’s over,” and generally, “Elections have consequences.”

It is Obama, too, who has announced that he’ll veto any cliff solution that doesn’t contain tax rate increases on that group of Americans whom he despises.

It was Reid who, last Congressional session (of which there remain a rump term lasting until the New Year), blocked nearly 40 jobs-related bills and two national budgets passed by the House and refused even to allow them to be debated, much less come to a vote in the Democrat-dominated Senate.

It was Reid, too, who said on the eve of the election that he’d never work with the Republicans if Romney won.

And it was Senator Patty Murray (D, WA), in a Fox News “Special Report with Bret Baier” interview Wednesday, who had this exchange with Baier:

Baier: So when you hear that [Speaker John Boehner (R, OH) saying that revenues could be increased through tax reform and closing loopholes], what do you hear?

Murray: First of all, I really appreciate the Speaker say that he understands that revenue needs to be on the table.

Baier: When you say “revenue,” you mean taxes, tax increases.

Murray: That’s correct.

She also said in that interview,

The President ran on making sure that the wealthiest Americans participate in solving this problem.  He won.  A number of our Senate candidates, in fact all of them, ran on the same thing; they won.  I think that puts us in a place where we can really move forward.

There’s that Democrat concept of “bipartisanship” and “compromise.”

On the other side, Majority Leader Cantor said in a letter to House Republicans on Wednesday (the letter can be found here)

This election was filled with good news, and bad news. The good news is that the American people responded to two years of House Republican leadership by sending us back with a strong majority. It is clear that our efforts to improve the economy and create the conditions for job growth were well-received….

Our task is to legislate based on our principles and forge the compromise that will be necessary to get our nation back on track.

This is entirely correct.  A man who would compromise his principles is a man who has no principles and so is a man who cannot be trusted.  While it’s true that a clash of principles can lead to an inability to compromise, at least one side of this debate is operating from principle.  For the other side, it’s only about power and ego, just as it has been these past four years.