The Tea Party responds to the president: “the time is now!” 2

By Tom Quiner

The president gave his State of the Union address. He says the “time is now” to make change.

The Tea Party movement agrees, only the change they call for is far different than what the president wants.

The Tea Party calls for:

1. A budget. It has been 1000 days since the Senate has presented a budget.

2. Stop deficit spending. The president has increased deficit spending.

3. Real spending cuts.

4. Repeal government-controlled healthcare, aka “Obamacare.”

The president and the Tea Party agree on the timing, “now.” But president is adamant in his rejection of limited government and responsible budgeting.

Who is right? The Tea Party, of course.




The State of Small Business Reply

By Tom Quiner

Small business is the backbone of our economy.

Ninety-nine percent of all employer firms have fewer than five-hundred employees.

They employe more than half of all private sector employees and pay 44% of all private payroll.

They have generated 64% of all net new jobs over the past fifteen years.

In other words, our economy depends on small businesses. The key to stimulating them isn’t big government spending, it is pro-growth tax policies which moderate income taxes and lower capital gains tax rates.

Another pro-growth policy is to permanently eliminate the death tax. The death tax hurts thriving small businesses and farms because it forces the owner’s family to sell off assets to pay for the tax.

There is a huge hidden tax that impacts small business: government regulation. Each new regulation carries a compliance cost. Each new regulation increases the cost of running a business and decreases profitability, which in turn hurts job creation.

That’s not to say that all regulations are bad, nor are they all good. The trick is to balance the needs of the state with the needs of the business.

The Obama administration has our regulatory climate way out of balance.

The annual cost of regulation in the U.S. is estimated to be $1.75 TRILLION. That’s double what the government collects in income taxes.

As you can see in the video above, the Obama administration imposed $38 billion in new regulations (through mid 2011) which is the fastest increase of regulations in that time frame ever.

Small business is choking to death.

Bernie Marcus was the co-founder of Home Depot. This entrepreneur has created hundreds of thousands of jobs in the U.S. He flat out tells us that the president’s economic policies are doing grave damage to small business:

“Having built a small business into a big one, I can tell you that today the impediments that the government imposes are impossible to deal with. Home Depot would never have succeeded if we’d tried to start it today. Every day you see rules and regulations from a group of Washington bureaucrats who know nothing about running a business. And I mean every day. It’s become stifling.

If you’re a small businessman, the only way to deal with it is to work harder, put in more hours, and let people go. When you consider that something like 70% of the American people work for small businesses, you are talking about a big economic impact.”

The key to surviving the Obama economy is to “let people go.”

Earth to Obama: YOU are and YOUR policies are killing jobs.

When you listen to tonight’s State of the Union address, listen closely. Will the president lend the job creators a helping hand?

Or will this president, who has no business experience, continue the policies that have devastated working class America?


Double Taxed

Whether I’m criticizing Warren Buffett’s innumeracy or explaining how to identify illegitimate loopholes, I frequently write about the perverse impact of double taxation.

By this, I mean the tendency of politicians to impose multiple layers of taxation on income that is saved and invested. Examples of this self-destructive practice include the death tax, the capital gains tax, and the second layer of tax of dividends.

Double taxation is particularly foolish since every economic theory – including socialism and Marxism – agrees that capital formation is necessary for long-run growth and higher living standards.

Yet even though this is a critically important issue, I’ve never been satisfied with the way I explain the topic. But perhaps this flowchart makes everything easier to understand (click it for better resolution).

There are a lot of boxes, so it’s not a simple flowchart, but the underlying message hopefully is very…

View original post 145 more words

Finding common ground with pro-choicers: let’s err on the side of humanity 4

By Tom Quiner

“Pro lifers and pro choicers can agree on this: no one wants to see an innocent human being killed. The issue is, when does human life actually begin? When does someone actually become a human being?”

This was my premise in a chat over coffee with my friend, Bob, a staunch pro lifer. My thought was to find common ground, a starting point, between the two warring factions upon which we could build.

He looked at me with incredulity.

“You’ve got to be kidding!” was his response … or words to that effect.

Bob wasn’t willing to accept my premise.

Bob discounted the notion that abortion rights proponents were even remotely concerned that abortion might actually be killing an innocent human being. In other words, his sense was that these folks weren’t even interested in discussing the question on when someone actually becomes a human being.

How can you blame Bob?

Partial birth abortions take place in America. Viable babies in the womb are killed.

Democrats in Iowa’s legislature blocked a “fetal pain” bill last session which would prohibit abortions after 20 weeks of conception. Some scientific research suggests that the fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. One Democrat lawmaker scoffed at the science involved and turned it around to Republicans, demanding they prove the fetus can feel pain.

In fact, just about every single regulation that Republicans propose on abortion is rebuffed by Democrats. President Obama, while a state legislator in Illinois, even refused to vote for a “child born alive” piece of legislation that would allow medical personnel to try to save the life of a baby that survived an abortion.

In light of all of this, you can understand Bob’s reaction to my premise. The bottom line is this: abortion rights proponents seem disinterested in erring on the side of humanity. If a baby in the womb feels pain at 20 weeks, shouldn’t that count for something?

To my pro abortion friends and readers, I challenge you to consider this: there are only four possibilities when it comes to considering the implications of abortion:

1. The fetus is a person, and we know it.

Here’s a variation of this idea: let’s say you’re hunting in the woods. You see something moving through the trees. You move to get a better look at it and discover it’s a man. You take aim, fire, and kill the man.

You would be charged with first degree murder because your victim was a person and you knew it.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, this was the operating moral principle in the vast majority of state legislatures who had anti-abortion laws in place: killing the pre-born was the same as killing the born.

2. The fetus is a person, but we don’t know it.

Let’s say you’re hunting in the woods and you see something moving through the trees and you think it’s a deer but you’re not sure. You take aim, fire, and kill it, only to discover that it was a man. You may be charged with manslaughter, because you killed a human being. Your actions were irresponsible. This is what Roe v. Wade now permits.

3. The fetus isn’t a person, but we don’t know it.

Let’s say you’re hunting in the woods, you see something moving through the trees, and you think it’s a man. You take aim and fire. It turns out that you killed a deer, not a man. This might be considered criminal negligence. Your intent was to kill a human being.

4. The fetus isn’t a person, and you know it isn’t a person.

In this example, all doubt, all skepticism about what you see moving through the trees is removed. What you shoot and kill is a deer and you know it is a deer. This is the only moral and responsible scenario of the four presented.

What Roe v. Wade did is turn the argument for humanity upside down. Skepticism on “what is a fetus” should count against abortion, not for it.

My friend, Bob, and I both believe that humanity begins at conception. We believe that humanity isn’t a function of consciousness, mental acuity, viability, size, or place (whether residing in the womb or my living room).

America had laws in place to err on the side of humanity because of the lack of consensus on when human life actually began.

Roe v. Wade uses this lack of consensus as the basis for allowing abortion.

And yet, when it comes to something as precious as our humanity, shouldn’t we err on the side of humanity? Shouldn’t that be the common ground for people of conscience?

Will there be a media blackout of the March for Life again? 4

By Tom Quiner

If a few dozen Occupy Wall Street types gather to rage against the “1%”, the media will be there.

They will listen closely. They will write approving stories and spread them through the widespread outlets of the Mainstream Media (MSM).

This is news.

On the other hand, if a third of a million folks gather to march in the name of Life, the MSM yawns. If they even cover the event, it is token.

Their stories are not approving. They are perfunctory at best. When they write, they tend to be very short and they always, ALWAYS, underestimate the size of the crowds in order to downplay the widespread revulsion for abortion-on-demand policies that were born with Roe v Wade 39 years ago today.

NBC’s website had a headline this morning that said “Thousands expected to march” when in fact, the numbers of have been in the hundreds of thousands for over a decade.

The pro-life movement is growing. Gallup polls confirm the growing national concern for the killing of the preborn.

One of the quirks of social issues in our times is that as the young are becoming more tolerant of the idea of same-sex marriage, they are becoming less tolerant of abortion.

The movement has become so big that there is even a sprawling West Coast March for Life in the nation’s most liberal city, San Francisco. About the only place you can watch this inspiring support for the dignity of human life is on EWTN, the global Catholic network.

Watch the video above for a one minute recap of last year’s March.

Our prayers are with the marchers today.