What happens when one party controls the purse-strings? Reply


By Tom Quiner

What happens when one party controls the ability to spend taxpayer’s money too long?

California happens.

Democrats have controlled the legislature since 1996. According to WikiAnswers:

“They have been in complete control of setting the legislative agenda and appointing the membership of every legislative committee, including those that deal with health care, transportation, education, aging, public safety, budget, taxes, and revenue.”

Is California better off for it? No. The state is reeling. Spending is out of control. People are leaving the state in droves.

The video above reveals the most obvious problem: Democrats have voted lavish benefits for public employee unions at taxpayer expense in exchange for votes. California is the most egregious example of out-of-control spending.

It’s time for us to tighten our belts with spending restraint at all levels of government.

What’s the solution: higher taxes or spending restraint? 4


By Tom Quiner

The Tea Party movement deserves credit for changing the entire national debate on fiscal accountability. More than ever, our two political parties are debating paths to deficit reduction.

Republican Congressman, Paul Ryan, has outlined a detailed plan to fiscal sanity by calling for spending restraint.

President Obama, after escalating spending to unprecedented heights, has finally been browbeat into talking about America’s financial house-of-cards.

His solution is the old mantra of the Left: tax our country’s most-productive citizens (aka “the rich”) more.

The President’s premise is this: the root cause of deficits have been Reagan and Bush tax cuts.

He says rates are too low for top earners, that there are too many deductions and loopholes. For the record, the President has fully taken advantage of these deductions, saving himself hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes on his $5 million a year income.

He didn’t have to deduct interest on his mortgage and his retirement plans. He didn’t have to take a foreign tax credit or charitable deduction on his Nobel Peace Prize earnings.

But he did.

Let’s set that aside for now. Is the President correct? Are Republicans really wrong about their call to reduce government spending? Are Democrats correct that we simply need to tax high-earners more?

According to my research, we have a spending problem, not a tax problem.

I added up total government tax receipts by decade, adjusting for inflation in 1980 dollars.  Then I divided that number by the total U.S. population for the last year of each decade.  Here are my calculations:

For the 1980’s (1980 through 1989), the federal government collected an average of $22,688 per citizen for that decade.

For the 1990’s, they collected an average of $26,179 per citizen.

For the 2000’s, they collected an average of $29,427 per citizen (2009 tax receipts are estimated).

Remember, these numbers adjust for inflation and population.  According to my calculations, the treasury was not drained by the Bush tax cuts.  In fact, they collected more than ever from all sources, even income taxes.  In the 90’s, the government collected $11,889 in income taxes per citizen compared to $13,357 in the 2000’s.

Were the Bush tax cuts at the expense of us working class Americans?  In other words, did the rich bear a lighter load?

The answer is no.

Here is where the confusion sets in:  there has been a steady reduction in average tax rates for high earners since 1980.

Back in 1980, the average tax rate (as a percentage of adjusted gross income) for the top one percent of earners was just under 35 percent.  By 2007, the percentage had dropped to just over 22 percent.

That’s a pretty good deal for the fat cats, isn’t it?

Not so fast.  Their total share of the nation’s income tax load increased from about 19 percent in 1980 to about 40 percent in 2007 according to the IRS.

In one generation, the tax load shouldered by the rich doubled.

The rich paid more when we cut their taxes.  The top 25 percent of earners pay nearly 87 percent of the nation’s income tax; the bottom half pay less than 3 percent.

When you penalize (tax) productivity, you get less of it.  Lower marginal tax rates reward productivity.

So if the problem isn’t the tax cuts for America’s most productive workers, it must be big corporations.  They must not be paying their fair share.

Not according to the President’s Office of Management and Budget.  Their tax charts reveal that corporations picked up a bigger share of the income tax load under Bush than Clinton (12.1 percent in Bush’s last year in office compared with 10.2 percent in Clinton’s).

The evidence suggests that tax cuts weren’t the root cause of America’s growing indebtedness.  Spending is the problem.

For the past thirty years, the federal government’s tax haul has averaged 18.4 percent of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Entitlement spending will soon swamp that number.

In 1980, entitlement spending (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) consumed 7 percent of GDP.  The number is growing, projected to reach 10 percent of GDP by 2015.  The Congressional Budget Office tells us it will consume 18.5 percent of GDP by 2055.

In other words, our entire budget, if we go by the historical tax share of GDP, will be consumed by just these three budget items in the next generation. Taxes will have to be raised to unprecedented levels.  Lifestyles will be a shadow of what America knew.

Is this the responsible thing to do to our kids?

If the President wanted to take the moral high ground, he could forgo all those tax deductions and loopholes he derides. He can ask the rich Democrat campaign contributors, like Planned Parenthood CEOs, to do the same. He doesn’t have to change the law.

But in the meantime, he better do something about our nation’s insatiable spending habits.

We have a spending problem in America, not a tax problem.

The Democratic Party will go to the mat for abortion 1


By Tom Quiner

Tom Quiner and friends pray for life outside of Planned Parenthood

The President and his party believe in the public option when it comes to health insurance.

They believe in more taxes for the top producers.

They believe Guantanamo should be closed.

They’re against warrantless wiretaps.

They despise spending restraint.

They rail against indefinite detention of terrorist suspects.

And in particular, they are adamant: no more wars against arab dictators.

They have flip-flopped on all of these issues.

However, there is one on which they will not budge: their unwavering support for Planned Parenthood; their belief that abortion rights are sacred and must be maintained, if not expanded. To that aim, the president has appointed two pro-abortion judges to the Supreme Court. He has appointed the pro-abortion Kathleen Sibelius to the Department of Human Services.

Abortion is the core value of the Democratic Party.

It’s no wonder. Planned Parenthood is a big financial supporter of Democratic candidates having contributed $1.7 million over the last two election cycles.

In exchange, Democrats give the money back to Planned Parenthood to the tune of $360 million a year in taxpayer subsidies.

What is the single biggest issue on the minds of Americans these days? Spending restraint.

What is the single biggest issue on the minds of the President and his party? Abortion, regardless of the state of our financial house. The President and his party were willing to shut down the government over this single issue.

In fairness to Democrats, they do care about life. Here in Iowa, they have made it a criminal offense to kill an Iowa Pleistocene Land Snail or a Higgins Eye, both of which are on the endangered species list. You can be fined up to $50,000 and even go to jail for killing these life forms.

But they refuse to protect human life. Just the opposite.

They insist on taking money from taxpayers to help pay for abortions by funding Planned Parenthood. Did you know that 97% of pregnant women who enter Planned Parenthood are no longer pregnant when they leave?

I saw in the morning edition of The Des Moines Register that Planned Parenthood of the Heartland is planning on building a dozen new clinics in Iowa and Nebraska over the next few years.

Abortion is big business.

Planned Parenthood pays Democrats in exchange for ongoing taxpayer support.

Democrats will go to the mat for one issue, and one issue only: abortion.

Can Republicans say the same?

Is a bonfire the moral equivalent of mass murder? Reply


By Tom Quiner

A man burns a book many people love.

He video tapes and broadcasts the event around the world.

He adds subtitles to be sure his intended target can read it.

The response to those upset with the book burning?  Mass murder.  Beheadings. All done to strangers.

Let us not dwell on details. Is there any moral equivalence to the two events?  In other words, is a book-burning, regardless of the book, EVER morally equivalent to mass murder?

In other words, if someone burned the Christian Bible, does that justify Christians killing and beheading people?

If someone burned Atlas Shrugged, does that justify Objectivists and other members of an Ayn Rand Cult going out on a beheading spree?

The answer is yes, the actions are morally equivalent in the eyes of two groups, Muslims and American liberals, if the book being burned is the Koran. For that is what just happened on April 1st. Muslims were upset with a no-name, goof-ball preacher named Terry Jones who burned the Koran. Their response? Why go out and kill U.N. workers and cut off their heads.  Four folks are dead.  Two lost their heads.

Joe Klein is a liberal who writes for Time Magazine. He made it clear that Preacher Jones’ actions were just as bad as the murderous mob of Muslims:

“There should be no confusion about this: Jones’s act was murderous as any suicide bomber’s.”

There of course is no similarity in the two acts except in the eyes of modern moral barbarians, such as Islamic extremists and American liberals.

 

 

The “shocking” white baby from New Jersey 1


By Tom Quiner

This baby is “shocking, unsettling and manipulative.”

CBS Outdoor, the billboard advertising arm of CBS Television, refuses to allow a group to use this image on a billboard on which they wish to advertise in New Jersey for those reasons.

A pro life group wishes to use the image along with this ad copy:

Abortion

A Woman’s “Right to Choose”

vs.

A Baby’s Right to Live

We Can Help.  Call 1.800.848.LOVE

CBS spokesperson, Dianne Curry, said:

“While we accept ads for both “Pro Choice” and “Right to Life” organizations, we acknowledge that the issue is highly polarizing with strong advocacy on each side of the debate. Additionally, it is a potentially emotional topic that might be unduly disturbing to your women who may have made the kinds of choices that the displays deal with. Therefore, the accepted copy cannot include images which might be deemed shocking, unsettling or even manipulative.”

However, Ms. Curry was comfortable allowing the following billboard to run:

This is an outstanding billboard, one that addresses the issue of black genocide on which this blog has written.

But one can’t help but be struck by  CBS’ inconsistency: black baby good; white baby bad.

I would suggest that a human life is a human life whether black, white, or purple.

Political correctness continues to flourish at CBS and the rest of the mainstream media.