Tag Archives: ethics

Fairness

Posted on by
Reply

Stephen Moore, of The Wall Street Journal, asks some questions….

about taxes

Is it fair that the richest 1% of Americans pay nearly 40% of all federal income taxes, and the richest 10% pay two-thirds of the tax?

Is it fair that the richest 10% of Americans shoulder a higher share of their country’s income-tax burden than do the richest 10% in every other industrialized nation….

Is it fair that Americans who build a family business, hire workers, reinvest and save their money—paying a lifetime of federal, state and local taxes often climbing into the millions of dollars—must then pay an additional estate tax of 35% (and as much as 55% when the law changes next year) when they die, rather than passing that money onto their loved ones?

Is it fair that nearly four out of 10 American households now pay no federal income tax at all—a number that has risen every year under Mr. Obama?

about labor

Is it fair that after the first three years of Obamanomics, the poor are poorer, the poverty rate is rising, the middle class is losing income, and some 5.5 million fewer Americans have jobs today than in 2007?

Is it fair that those who work full-time jobs (and sometimes more) to make ends meet have to pay taxes to support up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits for those who don’t work?

Is it fair that thousands of workers won’t have jobs because the president sided with environmentalists and blocked the shovel-ready Keystone XL oil pipeline?

Is it fair that in 27 states workers can be compelled to join a union in order to keep their jobs?

Is it fair that Boeing, a private company, was threatened by a federal agency when it sought to add jobs in a right-to-work state rather than in a forced-union state?

about individual responsibility

Is it fair that those who took out responsible mortgages and pay them each month have to see their tax dollars used to subsidize those who acted recklessly, greedily and sometimes deceitfully in taking out mortgages they now can’t afford to repay?

Is it fair that our kids and grandkids and great-grandkids—who never voted for Mr. Obama—will have to pay off the $5 trillion of debt accumulated over the past four years, without any benefits to them?

Contradictions

Posted on by
Reply

In an energy policy article in The Daily Caller, Deneen Borelli raises some interesting disconnects between President Obama’s rhetoric and his actions.  She points out the failures engendered by his contradictions:

Despite his class-war rhetoric, Obama’s command-and-control energy policy drains our budget to reward crony capitalists such as General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt and his fellow presidential jobs panel member and billionaire venture capitalist John Doerr.

Ironically, the Obama war on fossil fuels hurts hard-working Americans because high energy prices have a disproportional impact on middle- and lower-income households and jeopardizes U.S. manufacturing.

And although Obama has called for fairness and a level playing field, the mandates and subsidies for renewable energy he favors would stifle competition by picking winners and losers.”

Then she gets specific.

on energy

Obama’s call for more oil and gas drilling in his State of the Union address was meant to deflect attention away from his failure to approve TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline.

Obama’s energy policy excludes coal. Coal now provides approximately 45 percent of our electricity, but regulations generated by the Obama EPA are imposing significant costs on utilities, costs that are forcing some power plants to close and others to spend billions of dollars in order to comply. Those compliance costs will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher electricity prices.

Fossil fuels — coal, oil and natural gas — provide roughly 85 percent of America’s energy needs. Yet, despite the failure of companies such as Solyndra, Obama is doubling down on renewable energy by calling for a national renewable energy mandate, forcing the Department of Defense to buy enough renewable energy to power a quarter of a million homes

on jobs

The president’s refusal to allow construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, at a cost of an estimated 20,000 jobs….

Full Credit

Posted on by
Reply

In MSNBC’s pre-Super Bowl interview with President Obama, Matt Lauer had this exchange with him.

Lauer: Three years ago we sat for this interview on Super Bowl Sunday; you had been President for just 10 days, and we talked about the state of the economy, which was in dire straits, and you said this to me, quote, If I don’t have this done in three years, then it’s going to be a one-term proposition.  You got good news on Friday in terms of jobs, the unemployment rate went down to 8.3%.  But I think if you go out on the street, you ask Americans “is the recovery done?” Overwhelmingly they will tell you it is not.  So do you deserve a second term?

Obama: I deserve a second term, but we’re not done.

There’s also this from Obama’s State Department concerning the nearly year-long situation in Syria [emphasis added]:

“We’re going to work with countries around the world to call out those who are still sending him weapons, and expose that,” [State Department spokeswoman Victoria] Nuland said. The [contact group of countries] will look at helping Syria “plot a way forward and also to do what we can about the humanitarian situation.”

Still, she recognized the limitations of that strategy.

“It’s frankly not clear how much we’re going to be able to do, but we want to help.“

And that makes it all better.  We’re just trying to help.  We deserve a prize for effort.

Here are a couple of results from this Progressive focus on credit for “trying really hard” as opposed to actual results.  The outcomes indicate both their out of touch-ness and their lack of understanding of what’s important and where true value lies.  Obama speaking, again:

I think what Americans want to hear more than anything else is, “How are you going to help me right now.  If they’re hearing a persuasive argument about how we’re gonna recreate a solid path for middle-class success in this country then I think I’ll win….”

and

What’s frustrated people is that I have not been able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008.

The fact is, we aren’t asking, “How are you going to help me right now?”  We don’t want to hear “how you’re going to create anything for a particular class;” though we do notice that you’re only concerned about the middle class, to the exclusion of Lauer’s “underclass.”

We are asking, “When are you going to get out of our way so we can go back to helping ourselves and helping each other?”  We are asking, “How is your government going to get out of our way so all Americans can be successful–middle class, poor, and rich alike?”  We don’t care—in fact, we’re overjoyed—that you “haven’t been able to force the people’s representatives to roll over and be your lapdog.”

But Progressive self-esteem is so important.

Hypocrisy, Part II

Posted on by
Reply

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has an opinion piece in USA Today.

In her apologia for an Obamacare regulation that requires health insurance programs provided by a vast range of Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and so on institutions to provide contraception, sterilization and abortifacients in direct, open contravention of the teachings and beliefs of those institutions (and that requires those institutions to offer those insurance plans exclusively), she writes

One of the key benefits of the 2010 health care law is that many preventive services are now free for most Americans with insurance. … So is the full range of preventive health services recommended for women by the highly respected Institute of Medicine, including contraception.

So, no one is paying any taxes, or being forced to change their existing health insurance policies, to pay for this.

Nor is there any cancellation of religious teachings or thought or fundamental tenets by this Federal government, which used to be on the other side of a “wall of separation between Church & State.”  There’s an interesting view of “free.”

That’s why in the rule we put forward, we specifically carved out from the policy religious organizations that primarily employ people of their own faith. This exemption includes churches and other houses of worship, and could also include other church-affiliated organizations.

Umm, no.  Not hospitals, not doctors’ offices, not clinics.  These employ (quite properly) far too broad a range of employees to be able to fit within the carefully and deliberately narrowly drawn limits of this rule.

In choosing this [extremely narrow religious] exemption, we looked first at state laws already in place across the country. Of the 28 states that currently require contraception to be covered by insurance, eight have no religious exemption at all.

The religious exemption in the administration’s rule is the same as the exemption in Oregon, New York and California.

Of course, far be it from the Federal government to set an example.  Oh, wait….

Progressives and the Law

Posted on by
Reply

I wrote about the Progressives’ attitude to the law last fall.  Here’s another demonstration of their view.

By now it’s well known that, in direct contravention of the law, the Democratic Party-controlled Senate has declined to produce a budget for over 1,000 days.  Now the Senate Majority Leader, harry Reid (D, UT) has openly stated that he will refuse to allow the Senate to produce anything related for FY2013.  Budget?  We ain’t got no budgets.  We don’t need no budgets!  I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ budgets!  What Reid actually said was just as fictitious.  Referring to last summer’s debt-limit deal, he claimed:

We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year — it’s done, we don’t need to do it[.]

And his other pet, Senator Charles Schumer (D, NY) chimed in:

We have a budget. … It is a total falsity to say we haven’t passed a budget.

Despite this Progressive disdain, though, a budget resolution in the Senate is both legally necessary and highly useful.  Such a resolution serves as a blueprint for spending, and it provides a broad outline for the Senate Appropriations Committee’s spending choices.

Congressman Paul Ryan (R, WI) pointed out that the Senate Democrats

fell far, far short of solving this country’s fiscal problems.

and those Democrats

confirm they’ve given up on budgeting. What a disgrace. Reid’s refusal to budget is a recipe for crisis.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R, AL) said, as well (his complete statement is here),

Budget Control Act spending caps [that debt-limit deal], crafted behind closed doors and rushed to passage at the 11th hour under threat of panic, do not even approach the definition of the budget process that the law requires. They are not in any way or any sense a Senate Democrat budget plan.

Stand by for another year of Progressive disdain.  Remember it in November.